Deep and Emerald

McmillanBirds · Post by **McmillanBirds** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:20 am

Thanks Madas. Thats interesting to know. Did the birds grow up together though or were they introduced at a later age? I can't imagine it being successful for every breeder though.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:31 am

I think that is a DEC pastel fischer lovebird, but I could also be very wrong.

madas · Post by **madas** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:20 am

Johan S wrote:I think that is a DEC pastel fischer lovebird, but I could also be very wrong.

Not bad. Was bought as PastelIno.

madas

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:57 am

Hi Madas,

If this "saddle" pattern is inherited from parents to offspring in a predictible way it should be considered as a different allele in the parblue group. Do you have any pic of an homozygous bird, young and adult, to verify the psittacin evolution with aging?

Recio

Homozygous bird first before making conclusions!

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:37 am

trabots wrote:
Hi Madas,

If this "saddle" pattern is inherited from parents to offspring in a predictible way it should be considered as a different allele in the parblue group. Do you have any pic of an homozygous bird, young and adult, to verify the psittacin evolution with aging?

Recio
Homozygous bird first before making conclusions!

I agree ...

Recio

Deon Smith · Post by **Deon Smith** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:28 am

Madas

Could your bird be a SF Khaki Parblue?

Deon

madas · Post by **madas** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:51 am

Deon Smith wrote:Madas

Could your bird be a SF Khaki Parblue?

Deon

Really?

Misty + ParBlue = "aqua" looking phenotype. Interesting isn't it?

madas

Deon Smith · Post by **Deon Smith** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:08 pm

My idea of a Khaki TurqBlue comes from life itself.

I'll get an image tomorrow.

Deon

madas · Post by **madas** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:29 pm

Deon Smith wrote:My idea of a Khaki TurqBlue comes from life itself.

I'll get an image tomorrow.

Deon

Here is a pic of Deon showing a Khaki or Misty (not clear if both are the same) TurqBlue:

madas

Deon Smith · Post by **Deon Smith** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:50 pm

This specific picture was taken from the Web.

Deon

madas · Post by **madas** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:27 am

Deon Smith wrote:This specific picture was taken from the Web.

Deon

Hi Deon,

can you send me the link via PM.

thx.

madas

Edit: I found it. ;)

Deon Smith · Post by **Deon Smith** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:09 pm

Lee said:

Deon based on Madas statement that the ground color is "a step" darker your suggestion appears contradictory.
my experience with misty is that this mutation lightens green and blue

I don't think we can describe this mutation in conventional terms of paleness or darkness, as iridescence enters, as I have wrapped up in my book; probably due to structural change in the cortex.
We must see the colour effects in another dimension. My impression in shade is of a milky overlay, giving it an aqua-like appearance.

I cannot post images yet and have asked Madas to do that job.

Deon

madas · Post by **madas** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:32 pm

Deon Smith wrote: I cannot post images yet and have asked Madas to do that job.

Here they come:

madas

madas · Post by **madas** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:38 pm

And now the parents of the bird in question:

Father???
Mother???

madas · Post by **madas** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:17 am

molossus wrote:Father : Violet green/turq
Mother : Misty grey in dom edge.
the Mistys do look lighter to me.

Not bad, not bad my friend.

The mother should carry the cinnamon gen as well.
But it hard to tell if grey or blue (for my eyes there is a very light bluish shine at the upper feet region and parts of the tail)
because the misty gen is adding a greyish overlay to the body color.

madas

madas · Post by **madas** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:27 am

molossus wrote: the problem with Misty in blue is that there are two different expressions of the mutant in the blue gene...viz one a washed blue and the other a ash grey.

Means EF and DF or what?

madas · Post by **madas** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:52 am

molossus wrote:not sure exactly . Not enough info available. I have seen both phenotypes but the breeders didnt work long enough to confirm SF or DF.

Can you provide some pics? Possible in a new thread?

sheyd · Post by **sheyd** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:17 pm

Could the uniform (in colour) Emerald be a green series bird, and the patched version be a Blue series bird? or has this been disproven?

sorry if I'm thinking out of line here

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:33 pm

Chocobo wrote:Could the uniform (in colour) Emerald be a green series bird, and the patched version be a Blue series bird? or has this been disproven?

sorry if I'm thinking out of line here

I posed this before. A Violet 'Emerald' does not have the even colour distribution that the Deep 'Emerald' or 'Emerald' has. Why is this? It fluoresces under UV just like the others do. What about Cobalt 'Emerald'. The patched 'Emerald' however does not flouresce. Also the Violet sibling which showed psitticin long after fledging now looks just like its sister Violet 'Emerald'. The former does not flouresce unlike the latter. Until the inheritance is proven I think it prudent to call them 'Emeralds' for now.

patched 'Emerald', Deep 'Emerald'
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]
patched Violet 'Emerald'
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]
Violet 'Emerald'
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:09 pm

The patched 'Emerald' however does not flouresce. Also the Violet sibling which showed psitticin long after fledging now looks just like its sister Violet 'Emerald'. The former does not flouresce unlike the latter.

Willy, The first thing we should do is to UV check emeralds as soon as they fledge.
It would be interesting to see if we can early detect the non v flourecent emeralds, even before patches show.
What next?

Is this bulb ok in your opinion for UV testing? or do you recommend something else?
I have bought a few of these.

http://parakeet.me/irn/f/edge/uvla.jpg

prodigy · Post by **prodigy** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:39 pm

Hi Willy,

Have you perhaps got better photos of the "patched 'Emerald', Deep 'Emerald' please.

thanks,

Peter

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:13 pm

All I have

patched 'Emerald'
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

Deep 'Emerald'
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

prodigy · Post by **prodigy** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:27 pm

thanks you Sir !

madas · Post by **madas** » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:44 pm

trabots wrote: Violet 'Emerald'

Why does the bird show a light head color and light feeds? Out of a cinnamon line?

madas

sheyd · Post by **sheyd** » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:19 pm

Hi Willy- do you have any info on the dad of the 'patchy violet'

am thinking out loud...
Was thinking perhaps he was a green series split TurquoiseBlue - may explain the patches on the violet, and also his uniform colour... also how the violet doesn't look straight 'violet' (discounting the patches) like there is another modifier altering her colour..

Emerald Green- uniform altered green
Emerald Blue- uniform altered blue
Emerald Turqblue altered blue with Green patches???

actually scrap all of that---- I'm sure this is wrong as a Turqblue bird will show the wildtype/relative colour in the 'green' patches (what the bird would look like if it were a green series)- I wonder if the Emerald Green bird looks just about like a Wildtype Green hmm....

could there be such a thing as recessive Parblue?

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:06 pm

madas wrote:
trabots wrote: Violet 'Emerald'

Why does the bird show a light head color and light feeds? Out of a cinnamon line?

madas

There is no Cinnamon in this bird or the parents. The violet colouration would have been diluted as in a Lavender

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:19 pm

Hi Willy- do you have any info on the dad of the 'patchy violet'

I have checked with the breeders of the 'Emerald' father of all of the 'Emeralds' I have posted including the 'patched Emeralds' and neither parent of that bird was a TurquoiseBlue. The 'patched Emeralds' are not at this stage the same colour as a TurquoiseBlue nor IndigoBlue.

'Emerald', 'patched Emerald'
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

prodigy · Post by **prodigy** » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:45 pm

VERY INTERESTING

The patches on the "'patched Emerald' show up as green under the filters

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:55 am

Hi Willy,

About the "patchy Emeralds" : Are the patches increasing in size or intensity with the time passing? Are they also appearing in other areas (saddle, head, ...)? Have you noticed any difference in patching evolution between males and females?

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:39 pm

Recio wrote:Hi Willy,

About the "patchy Emeralds" : Are the patches increasing in size or intensity with the time passing? Are they also appearing in other areas (saddle, head, ...)? Have you noticed any difference in patching evolution between males and females?

Regards

Recio

Recio, I only have the 2 'patched Emeralds' 2012 cock and hen siblings, no difference yet noticed. I also have a 2011 Violet 'patched Emerald' sibling. The latter has expanded its pscitticin to the point I have a hard time telling it apart from a true Violet 'Emerald' yet it is different than my Violet IndigoBlue or Deep Violet TurquoiseBlue. My aviary situation is that I flock all my IRNs in a very large flight so hard to inspect the birds of interest without going in and catching. I do plan to catch these up with some other Parblues and take pics sometime soon. Watch this space.

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:39 am

Hi everybody,

In Deon's book I can see that the primary flying wing feathers of Emeralds seem not to be fluorescents under uv? Could anyone of you confirm? ... or is it just a question of lighting intensity? .... I am meaning: is fluorescence distribution the same in normals (or in lutinos) versus emeralds or is it different? Is it only a question of hue/saturation/brightness of the reflected ligth or the distribution on the bird feathers/inside a feather is different?

Regards

Recio

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:18 pm

Recio, in a picture Deon posted to the mailing list some time ago, some fluorescence does seem to exist in the primary flights of the heterozygous emerald, but not for the ino and turquoise in the same pic. Not sure if I'm allowed to post the pic, though.

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:20 am

Hi Johan,

That was my belief also ... but the pic in Deon's book shows that the primary flying feathers are not fluorescent in Emeralds, just like in wild or lutino birds. Deon used a wide broad uv spectrum with a high intensity in order to get enough fluorescent intensity to take the pics ... so it is strange that, in these conditions, we can not see any fluorescence in the primary wing feathers (every condition has been enhanced to detect it in the pic).

My deep thougth : could the different fluorescence quality in Emeralds be due to a change in feather structure always keeping the same type of fluorescent psittacin than in wild birds? If the distribution of both fluorescence types is the same it would add consistency to this idea. If the distribution is not the same we should think of different psittacin types.

Regards

Recio

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:28 am

Hi Willy,

You said that the patched Emeralds were not fluorescing like normal Emeralds do but like other parblues. I understand that the distribution of the detected fluorescence in the patched emeralds follows the same pattern than in parblues ... but ... what about its quality? Is it similar to parblues (yellowish) or to normal emeralds (bluish/whitish)?

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:35 pm

Recio, I will have to get a better UV source as I for one could not see 'bluish' florescence in my 'Emerald'. The patched birds only fluoresced strongly on the patches like the other Parblues. I have not compared them directly.

If my 'Emerald' was split for Turquoise then it has to be an 'Emerald' Green bird.

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:46 am

trabots wrote:Recio, I will have to get a better UV source as I for one could not see 'bluish' florescence in my 'Emerald'. The patched birds only fluoresced strongly on the patches like the other Parblues. I have not compared them directly.

We do not have a "common" language to describe fluorescent colours ... but you were the first to describe that Emerald's fluorescence was completelly different than for the other birds. You can call it as you prefere (bluish, whitish, ...) and probably our perception also depends on the uv spectrum and its intensity ... but what I am asking is if the fluorescence of the patches in the patched Emeralds is of the same quality than the "normal" Emeralds or of the same quality than in other parblues.

If my 'Emerald' was split for Turquoise then it has to be an 'Emerald' Green bird

Yes, that was Johan conclusion and I agree 100%.

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:38 pm

you were the first to describe that Emerald's fluorescence was completelly different

Yes I did but I don't believe I was referring to the 'quality' of the flourescence but the quantity and possibly the intensity. The whole bird seemed to fluoresce unlike other Parblues which fluoresced mainly on the patches. I was not looking at others at the same time which would be imperative if trying to determine what you call 'quality'. I am sorry but I am not in a position to speculate about the quality of fluorescence without comparing same with same. I do not have the ability to photograph UV reflectance yet so except by putting them all under the light together, I can't help.

If my 'Emerald' was split for Turquoise then it has to be an 'Emerald' Green bird

What you have missed is that an 'Emerald' Green /Turquoise paired to a Blue will not breed Blues. My 'Emerald' does breed Blues, paired as it is to a Deep Violet Blue (5 Blues in 2 years). It must have at least one Blue gene which therefore means that it cannot also be split for Turquoise. My 'Emerald' is at best split for Blue only and the patched birds are still a mystery.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun May 12, 2013 5:33 pm

Deep, Deep Emerald, Emerald 9mo

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Sun May 12, 2013 11:29 pm

Willy, great pic, thanks! Just want to make sure as I'm saving these to my picture collection, are the emeralds hetero-/homozygous? Thanks!

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Mon May 13, 2013 1:05 am

Johan, as I said before, if a Parblue or a dominant mutation is homozygous I will say 'df'.