Emerald Parblue proof

[Mikesringnecks]

At the start of the breeding season I got 7 chicks from a TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen. I believed that they were probably 5 emeralds and 2 turquoise but I was not sure at the time because pastel was only clearly visible on one of the turquoise chicks and I had no comparators for 2 of the emerald chicks and I could not therefore confidently dismiss the possibility of those two also carrying turquoise.
To further cast doubt on the matter, the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen was not patchy as one would expect a young turquoise bird to be. At the time, there were two schools of thought, one suggesting she was a Green Emerald split turquoise and the other strongly supporting the long accepted parblue position.
Subsequent to my initial posting, a single breeding result emerged in Queensland (Aaron's chick). It was claimed as 100% proof of the parblue position. It was very close to a perfect proof except for one fatal flaw: namely that the same breeding result could arise from an emerald gene that was structural in nature and could produce a yellow outcome via structure rather than via pigmentation. Nonetheless that single result was very important because it severely limited the options for a non parblue outcome.

I said at the time that I would post photos and whatever I could deduce from them at the end of the juvenile moult when I hoped visual data would be clearer from my contribution. The moult has not wholly finished but the colours are clear now and most of the chicks are being sold so I need to act. There are four numbered photos below and I will comment on what I think they prove.

For reasons I cannot fathom the forum site will not accept photos 2 and 4 so I will have to simply explain what they show.
Photo 1 is of a Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail chick it simply shows how Violet Blue the bird is. For me this means that if the mother is not a parblue she must be an Emerald Green TurquoiseBlue Cleartail not a split turquoise.
Photo 2 shows a Green Cleartail, the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen and the Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail chick. Its purpose is to highlight the different yellows in the 3 birds namely: green cleartail very bright and bold; Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail extremely pale yellow; TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail midway between. For me this proves that Turquoise is being expressed in the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen so she must be either TurquoiseEmerald or Emerald Green TurquoiseBlue. It also suggests that the Violet EmeraldBlue chick cannot be carrying turquoise.
Photo 3 shows the two Violet TurquoiseBlue chicks with pastel now clearly visible after the juvenile moult and no sign of emerald.
Photo4 is a front on view of the emerald chicks. It was taken to show that their yellow undersides are exactly the same colour which proves to me that they are not carrying a turquoise gene.
In summary I am now certain that my TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen and her Violet Cobalt Cleartail partner produced 7 chicks that were either turquoise or emerald but never both or neither. I believe this provides about 99% proof of the parblue position.
The only question I now have for those more expert in genetics is can the emerald gene be both a parblue and structural gene producing a yellow colour through structure rather than pigment?
PS I am happy to send the photos to anyone who knows how to post them properly on the forum.
Kind regards
Mike

[John Shannon]

Hi Mike
Thanks for proving that emerald and turquoise are two separate mutations 100%. Well done

[madas]

At the start of the breeding season I got 7 chicks from a TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen. I believed that they were probably 5 emeralds and 2 turquoise but I was not sure at the time because pastel was only clearly visible on one of the turquoise chicks and I had no comparators for 2 of the emerald chicks and I could not therefore confidently dismiss the possibility of those two also carrying turquoise.
To further cast doubt on the matter, the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen was not patchy as one would expect a young turquoise bird to be. At the time, there were two schools of thought, one suggesting she was a Green Emerald split turquoise and the other strongly supporting the long accepted parblue position.
Subsequent to my initial posting, a single breeding result emerged in Queensland (Aaron's chick). It was claimed as 100% proof of the parblue position. It was very close to a perfect proof except for one fatal flaw: namely that the same breeding result could arise from an emerald gene that was structural in nature and could produce a yellow outcome via structure rather than via pigmentation. Nonetheless that single result was very important because it severely limited the options for a non parblue outcome.

I said at the time that I would post photos and whatever I could deduce from them at the end of the juvenile moult when I hoped visual data would be clearer from my contribution. The moult has not wholly finished but the colours are clear now and most of the chicks are being sold so I need to act. There are four numbered photos below and I will comment on what I think they prove.

For reasons I cannot fathom the forum site will not accept photos 2 and 4 so I will have to simply explain what they show.
Photo 1 is of a Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail chick it simply shows how Violet Blue the bird is. For me this means that if the mother is not a parblue she must be an Emerald Green TurquoiseBlue Cleartail not a split turquoise.
Photo 2 shows a Green Cleartail, the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen and the Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail chick. Its purpose is to highlight the different yellows in the 3 birds namely: green cleartail very bright and bold; Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail extremely pale yellow; TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail midway between. For me this proves that Turquoise is being expressed in the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen so she must be either TurquoiseEmerald or Emerald Green TurquoiseBlue. It also suggests that the Violet EmeraldBlue chick cannot be carrying turquoise.
Photo 3 shows the two Violet TurquoiseBlue chicks with pastel now clearly visible after the juvenile moult and no sign of emerald.
Photo4 is a front on view of the emerald chicks. It was taken to show that their yellow undersides are exactly the same colour which proves to me that they are not carrying a turquoise gene.
In summary I am now certain that my TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen and her Violet Cobalt Cleartail partner produced 7 chicks that were either turquoise or emerald but never both or neither. I believe this provides about 99% proof of the parblue position.
The only question I now have for those more expert in genetics is can the emerald gene be both a parblue and structural gene producing a yellow colour through structure rather than pigment?
PS I am happy to send the photos to anyone who knows how to post them properly on the forum.
Kind regards
Mike

Hi Mike,

are you sure your cleartail violet turqBlues are "only" violets? They look very dark. I would go for cleartail Dark violet turqBlue.

madas

[Carr.birds]

Stefan

I agree with you they are to dark for cleartail violet turqblue

Tienie

[Johan S]

Thanks for the feedback, Mike. Much appreciated! Do you plan to keep the pair together for one more season?

[sheyd]

Pics for Mike

Photo 1 is of a Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail chick it simply shows how Violet Blue the bird is. For me this means that if the mother is not a parblue she must be an Emerald Green TurquoiseBlue Cleartail not a split turquoise.

Photo 2 shows a Green Cleartail, the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen and the Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail chick. Its purpose is to highlight the different yellows in the 3 birds namely: green cleartail very bright and bold; Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail extremely pale yellow; TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail midway between. For me this proves that Turquoise is being expressed in the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen so she must be either TurquoiseEmerald or Emerald Green TurquoiseBlue. It also suggests that the Violet EmeraldBlue chick cannot be carrying turquoise.

Photo 3 shows the two Violet TurquoiseBlue chicks with pastel now clearly visible after the juvenile moult and no sign of emerald.

Photo4 is a front on view of the emerald chicks. It was taken to show that their yellow undersides are exactly the same colour which proves to me that they are not carrying a turquoise gene.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Stefan
They are definitely Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartails. I caught them and put them in my photo box with a Violet Cobalt Cleartail cock and a Violet Blue Cleartail hen and they certainly don't carry a dark factor gene. I think it is just the turquoise that makes them appear darker. You can also tell with absolute certainty that they don't carry emerald from their undersides where they are white not yellow.
Kind regards
Mike

[madas]

Hi Stefan
They are definitely Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartails. I caught them and put them in my photo box with a Violet Cobalt Cleartail cock and a Violet Blue Cleartail hen and they certainly don't carry a dark factor gene. I think it is just the turquoise that makes them appear darker. You can also tell with absolute certainty that they don't carry emerald from their undersides where they are white not yellow.
Kind regards
Mike

thx. So did you get any backview pics of this comparison???

regards.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Molossus
The green chick is not anything to do with clutch. It is in the photo only to show the clear difference between the yellow tones in Green, TurquoiseEmerald, and EmeraldBlue cleartails. As you can see they are quite obviously different.
I use that difference to prove to myself that none of the 5 cleartail chicks carrying emerald is also carrying turquoise. It also proves for me that turquoise is visually present in the mother which establishes that she is either a TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail if emerald is a par blue gene or TurquoiseBlue Emerald Cleartail if emerald is not a par blue gene.
The question I am asking the scientists amongst us is: can emerald be both a structural gene producing a yellow colour and a par blue gene?
As I see it, the "Aaron chick" breeding result proves emerald has to be either par blue or structural and my breeding result proves (to circa 99% I think) that emerald has to be a par blue gene. Hence the question above.
Kind regards
Mike

[Johan S]

my breeding result proves (to circa 99% I think) that emerald has to be a par blue gene.

Mike, is the above value of 99% a gut feeling, or did you attempt a statistical analysis? If the latter, perhaps you can show us the calculations of your hypothesis test? When I see a value of 99% with a sample size as small as 7, I can not help but think an error slipped in. Maybe one of us can spot it, if it is there. I haven't done one of those in a very long time, so I'm rusty as can be. If I recall correctly, calculations (I think by Recio, sounds like his cup of tea) showed that 14 or 16 chicks are required for a confidence of 95%, or 98%.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Johan
I haven't done stats since school and that was an awful long time ago. I just used 1/2 for 1 and then multiplied by 1/2 for each subsequent chick which is quite probably completely the wrong way to do it. However, I understand that we do have a further 6 chicks from another TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen in Queensland (Mike Laffey) 3 of which are Turquoise and 3 of which are Emerald, no Blue or TurquoiseEmerald.
I would be interested to know what the statisticians say about 7 and 6 from different mothers both individually and combined.
I'm sorry I took so long to be definite about my breeding outcome from the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen, but I was really uncertain as to what the chicks were genetically until now (post juvenile molt). That uncertainty was actually why I joined the forum, not to prove anything from the result but to find out what the chicks were because they had a Violet Dark Blue Cleartail father and I was not certain of what I was looking at in the nest. Attached is what I was looking at 3 months back, 2 Dark EmeraldBlue Cleartails from another pair and the first clutch of 3 from the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen and her Violet Dark Blue Cleartail mate.
Kind regards
Mike

[Johan S]

However, I understand that we do have a further 6 chicks from another TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen in Queensland (Mike Laffey) 3 of which are Turquoise and 3 of which are Emerald, no Blue or TurquoiseEmerald.
I would be interested to know what the statisticians say about 7 and 6 from different mothers both individually and combined.
I'm sorry I took so long to be definite about my breeding outcome from the TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail hen, but I was really uncertain as to what the chicks were genetically until now (post juvenile molt).

Mike, like they say, rather safe than sorry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a cautious approach and to wait things out.

As to the numbers, I wasn't aware of the other 6 chicks, but your results were nicely presented here so I'll go with that for now. Are you planning on keeping your pair together for another season?

[Recio]

Hi Molossus
The green chick is not anything to do with clutch. It is in the photo only to show the clear difference between the yellow tones in Green, TurquoiseEmerald, and EmeraldBlue cleartails. As you can see they are quite obviously different.
I use that difference to prove to myself that none of the 5 cleartail chicks carrying emerald is also carrying turquoise. It also proves for me that turquoise is visually present in the mother which establishes that she is either a TurquoiseEmerald Cleartail if emerald is a par blue gene or TurquoiseBlue Emerald Cleartail if emerald is not a par blue gene.
The question I am asking the scientists amongst us is: can emerald be both a structural gene producing a yellow colour and a par blue gene?
As I see it, the "Aaron chick" breeding result proves emerald has to be either par blue or structural and my breeding result proves (to circa 99% I think) that emerald has to be a par blue gene. Hence the question above.
Kind regards
Mike

Hi Mike;

This is a very good question : can emerald be both a structural gene producing a yellow colour and a par blue gene?
I think that you can get reasons to say both yes or not, and even yes but not or further not but yes.

Can a structural mutation produce a change in the expression of psittacins? I think that it is possible that a mutation acting on feather structure could interfere with the deposition of psittacins, and as a result, produce a bird with a lower amount of psittacins (similar as for melanin in dilutes). Far more, we do not own any prove that parblues are not due to such type of structural mutation. We call them parblues due to the final phenotypic expression (lower phenotypic psittacin) but we do not know if the mutation acts directly on psittacin synthesis, transport, feather deposition, ...

It could also happen that a structural mutation produce yellow and red structural colours (I have had a look at the feather colection of my son and I have been surprised by the quantity of feathers with yellow or red iridescent colours specially on the feather underside).

Could a structural mutation act on the final yellow colour by a double mechanism (decreased pigment and structural yellow) at the same time? It could be possible from a theoretical point of view but, to me, it is unlike.

Your results and others point to Emerald being a parblue, but then there are some findings which are hard to explain (specific fluorescence as the most prominent, together with iridescence). I have had the opportunity to examine some feathers from an Emerald bird whithout any apparent psittacin. These feathers had a bluish fluorescence under 365 nm, differently of the fluorescence present in the feathers you sent to me or of the fluorescence I can see on Deon's book. So maybe the apparent fluorescence we can see in an Emerald depends on the quantity of residual psittacin pigment (parblue component) and the change in feather structure (structural component). The parblue component would be the counterpart of the Aqua mutation as described in other species (uniform lower amount of psittacins) and it would provide the "yellowish" fluorescence. The structural component should be considered as a different mutation, and it would produce the "bluish" fluorescence and would be responsible of the typical iridescence. If both mutations are inherited as a single unit it would mean that they are highly linked and it would explain that Emerald inherits as a parblue.
If I remember correctly Willy wrote about some phenotypic Emerald youngsters which were not fluorescent under uv. Could the linkage between the parblue gene and the strcutural gene has been broken in those birds?

Could Emerald, in fact, be a combo of a parblue (Aqua?) and a structural mutation?

Regards

Recio

[prodigy]

Like Deep and Aqua ?

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Johan and Recio
Yes Johan I am keeping the pair together, she made the selection in the off season flock and I'm loath to break it up. They are still acting like a pair in the adult flock now and, whilst he does not have as good a tail as i would like, he is nice big bird.
Thanks very much for that response Recio, so many unknowns still. I guess the jury is still out then. I will reread your post a few times to get it straight in my head and look forward to Deon's breeding outcomes and UV analysis.
Kind regards
Mike

[Johan S]

Fantastic news, Mike. Best of luck for the coming season. I hope you have another good one.