Can (turquoise/emerald) Parblue ever be a Dominant Mutation?

[Recio]

Hi Lee,

The consensual definition of the inheritance pattern is made respective to the wild type. Thus Turquoise is a recessive mutation since an heterozygous WildTurquoise displays a wild pattern colour.

Nevertheless, in our aviaries we are vanishing the psittacin pigment as we mostly try to work on blue series birds. In this context, we could say that our "aviary wild type" is Blue, and in this situation Turquoise acts, as you say, as an incomplete dominant mutation. As you can see, the apparent inheritance pattern depends on which is the bird we consider as the wild type, and, for other species than IRN, it can change from one part of the world to another.

Respective to Emerald ... you already know my thoughts.

Regards

Recio

[bennjamin]

"Respective to Emerald ... you already know my thoughts."

Reco, where can we find in previous posts a good run down of your thoughts for emerald, and the reasons why you are thinking that way

[bennjamin]

Very hard to give an informed opinion when you have had very limited breeding experience to date with emerald.
From what has been put forward by Mike in particular, I have a very strong leaning to partial/co dominant mutation .. recessive to green and dominant over blue as you put in your question.
Until more youngsters that have emerald turquoise parentage have been produced, I will not discount there may be more at play than emerald just being another par blue variant.
I have a bird that was bred from a turquoise emerald Ct and a VioletCobalt CT (mikes bird) and only this week I have spoken to him about its colour change in the short period of time I have had it, wondering if indeed it may be a emerald Turq CT.
Another bird I have that has had dramatic colour change from a fledged youngster last breeding season to now is an Emerald Violet Cobalt hen. I have not had any other emeralds before to see if this is the norm, let alone an emerald with two other structural colours involved.

[madas]

Very hard to give an informed opinion when you have had very limited breeding experience to date with emerald.
From what has been put forward by Mike in particular, I have a very strong leaning to partial/co dominant mutation .. recessive to green and dominant over blue as you put in your question.
Until more youngsters that have emerald turquoise parentage have been produced, I will not discount there may be more at play than emerald just being another par blue variant.
I have a bird that was bred from a turquoise emerald Ct and a VioletCobalt CT (mikes bird) and only this week I have spoken to him about its colour change in the short period of time I have had it, wondering if indeed it may be a emerald Turq CT.
Another bird I have that has had dramatic colour change from a fledged youngster last breeding season to now is an Emerald Violet Cobalt hen. I have not had any other emeralds before to see if this is the norm, let alone an emerald with two other structural colours involved.

Can you post some pics of these two birds? In another new thread? thx.

[Mad Max]

Hi All
Molossus I hear what you are saying ,I dont have emerald yet so I wont comment on them yet.
As fot the turquoise being ressive or dominant ,I have 1 question for you and the rest of the guys here .

My question
How can turquoise be dominant if there are breeding resaults (In my own cages ) of two non turquoise birds giving offspring that are turquoise .

Waiting for some feedback
Regards
Robert

[madas]

How can turquoise be dominant if there are breeding resaults (In my own cages ) of two non turquoise birds giving offspring that are turquoise .

counter question:

Are these two birds green series birds? Means green body color?

madas

[Mad Max]

Hi Madas

The pairing was as follows

1-0 Dark Grey Blue X 0-1 SA Deep Green/Blue
Offspring from pair
1-0 Green
0-2 Dark Turquoise Blue

Regards
Robert

[bennjamin]

1-0 Dark Grey Blue X 0-1 SA Deep Green/Blue

The hen was split turquoise would be the logical answer.

[Mad Max]

Yes , I agree the point i was trying to make

Dominant will be visual , where turquoise being co dominant can and is then also possable in birds not showing the turquoise mutation .
So in answering your question (In the turquoise range ) It can't be a dominant mutation

Regards
Robert

[Ring0Neck]

Molossus,


Emerald based on what has been bred thus far i say Recessive to Wildtype.

As far as Emerald being Parblue data thus far tells us that it is so, at least the way it is being interpreted.
Looking at Aaron's pic of the Green/Emerald there is no visual evidence of Emerald

However,
I would not be surprised at all if there's another Blue or another Blue Allelic Locus as J & R have theorised.
It could even be Emerald Locus allelic to Blue Locus

The results of Emerald combined with Harlequin Pied and Turquoise is rather interesting and unexpected IMO.


* How do you guys interpret this pehnotype we see below?
Below 2 TurquoiseEmerald Pieds of Len & Bob (Thanks for the pics L n B)

[Ring0Neck]

Ringo nice bird.
its a turq emerald blue.
Ringo a question for you... how is it possible for a parblue(emerald) that already evolved on its own allele to now show psittacins patches over and above its complete parblue composition. I refer to Willys(non turquoise) patched emeralds.
To me this is not possible (unless emerald isnt parblue) as the green (psittacins) component is already used in the composition of this particular parblue.

Pics are of 2 birds from 2 diff. breeders

Another possibility (unlikely)
EmeraldBlue X "AzureBlue"
(If Azure were to be Parblue as someone once said) and was mistakenly IDed as something else
we would have 2 Parblues in play hence the patches.

The cause of the patched birds does not have to be because of Emerald, Emerald is only playing its part in it as it should!?

[Ring0Neck]

Aaah , you are not paying attention
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=18512&p=109201&hil ... ic#p109191

[Johan S]

how is it possible for a parblue(emerald) that already evolved on its own allele to now show psittacins patches over and above its complete parblue composition. I refer to Willys(non turquoise) patched emeralds.

Molossus, it actually fits well into a second model I consider for the blue locus, where there is a series of genes all controlling and assisting in psittacin production and playing a role in what we finally perceive as concentration, and a master gene, at what we consider the blue locus, that enables/disables psittacin production fully. If these genes forming a set are located very close to one another, for all practical purposes they will almost never unlink by crossover and express as a single gene that inherits true. This may very well be what we are seeing for turquoise, indigo, the saddle type parblue and the all allusive sapphire; four crossing overs somewhere between the master gene and the final gene in the series, in different places, producing different concentrations of psittacin and phenotypes. So to answer your question (with a question), if we allow for a "heavy weight" gene in the series to mutate resulting in a highly different psittacin granule that now changes the even psittacin layer from that in the wildtype to that in an emerald, what effect would all those other minor genes have? We have seen variation in normal psittacin production. So if we mutate psittacin by adding the emerald gene, I'd be surprised once emerald is being mixed with other parblues if we don't see variation in emerald. To keep emerald "pure", one would have to stick to wildtype and blue pairings. On that note, I won't be surprised if we start seeing a change in the emerald phenotype when continually breeding with blue, just like the case for continually breeding pallid to SLino resulting in lighter pallids after some generations. Yes, psittacin and melanin production are two very different things, but let's just say it's there in the realm of possibility.

Thanks for the early morning mental stimulation. Hope this turns into a great day for all.

[Johan S]

No problem, I'll play along, but I have another question too.

1) Tell me why, please. I know you want to.

2) In your view, does the "master" gene of the blue locus a) turn of normal psittacin production completely, i.e. no psittacin is deposited, or b) alter the psittacin in such a way that the granules are still deposited, but can not be observed anymore, i.e. a "transparent" or colourless psittacin granule is deposited?

Here is why I ask: Keep in mind, in both scenarios a) and b) our bird will look blue, as if no psittacin exists. So it might seem as if both scenarios are the same. However, with some thought, there is a difference. For b) I can see a scenario where the even layer psittacin (non fluorescent type in the wildtype) is altered by blue to be "transparent" leaving only blue, but altered differently by emerald to still be somewhat "psittacin-like" with different UV characteristics. In the case of b), emerald would be visible in blue series (like we expect and know for sure), and potentially show slightly even in green series (the dominant theory) or be completely masked by the wildtype (recessive theory). UV investigation of a green series bird known to carry emerald will "shed a lot of light" (pun intended). Even though I'm not into the smart stuff and know next to nothing about the synthesis of proteins and that stuff, I can image that this (a single granule mutating in two distinctly different ways) might be possible.

The above will completely break our current definition for the blue locus. This is of course where the potential for head butting starts and depends on one's interpretation of the definition. The classic definition for the blue locus is that the bird is psittacin free, but it is unclear if psittican free refers to no psittican, or no visible psittacin (i.e. the granules are still deposited in the feather cortex, but not visible, or at least without the strong yellow component in the visual range). The definition should be altered to something like the blue locus is a bird that is free of unaltered psittacin found in the wildtype.

Sure, I might have some difficulty explaining it, but in my mind this model makes sense and accommodates both view points. And I have used it to predict what turquoise emerald would look like prior to seeing one.

[Johan S]

can parblue ever be dominant?

The long and the short of it is no, a parblue can only be recessive since it does not modify psittacin directly, it alters the concentration. However, I believe that an allele of blue can modify the nature of non-fluorescent psittacin to become what we see in emerald, and that can be dominant, even if an allele of blue. So different alleles at the same locus shows a different mode of inheritance.

As for your theory on the blue locus and its tributaries...perhaps but not in the same locus as the 4 grades of turq. but you must remember I base my stance on the fact that emerald isnt parblue as in turquoise which is parblue recessive to green and dominant to blue..
and I believe that the green emerald will have a slightly different shade of green and the tail may be its marker for identification.

In short: I agree with you, I don't think emerald is a parblue. I think it is a special kind of blue, but rather than having a colourless psittacin granule, it has an emerald yellow granule.

The difficulty in explaining/understanding my concept is (A) first distinguishing between the psittacin types (even vs patched psittacin, and the difference between them), and (B) the concept of concentration vs type of psittacin. Confusion will exist if one believes that a parblue carries different psittacin to the wildtype, which it doesn't. It merely carries less of the same type. My suggestion is that emerald carries a different type of even psittacin (therefore smooth over entire body), controlled by the same gene locus that turns even psittacin in the wildtype to transparent/colourless psittacin granules in the blue series. And that means that the same locus is at play, being the blue locus, but the gene was mutated differently to blue, and we have an allele.

[madas]

So different alleles at the same locus shows a different mode of inheritance.

Isn't possible for my knowledge. All alleles of one and the same locus share the same inheritance.

madas

[Ring0Neck]

...I believe that an allele of blue can modify the nature of non-fluorescent psittacin to become what we see in emerald...

Sounds good,Turquoise already does that in its own way, being an Allele of Blue, we do have to agree with Madas and stick to recessive inheritance being from same locus.
Based on above we can speculate Emerald being Rec. to wildtype ; An Allele of Blue but not from same Allele as Turquoise !
* Parblue= Partial Blue so even if Emerald is an allele of Blue but not same as Turquoises's Allele, wouldn't it still be technically considered Parblue?

How can we prove/disprove this theory??


PS
http://www.ornitho-genetics.info/?p=2000
by Dirk Van den Abeele

[Recio]

Hi everybody,

Johan is rigth: Dominance is not inherent to an allele. It is a relationship between alleles; one allele can be dominant over a second allele, recessive to a third allele, and codominant to a fourth.
For further and easy reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics) .... type it to acces de rigth page (I do not understand why the ")" is not "accepted").
Some interesting homework about the recessive or dominant nature of two allèles: http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2250_On ... nzyme.html

How to uncover the nature of Emerald? Have a look under uv to a green series bird owing Emerald (as split or as SF depending on theories) specially, as it has been previously suggested, to the tail feathers.

Hi Lee, did you look at your Emerald green series birds under uv as suggested by Deon?

Recio

[Sherjil]

so even if Emerald is an allele of Blue but not same as Turquoises's Allele, wouldn't it still be technically considered Parblue?

How can we prove/disprove this theory??

Hi Ring0Neck you seem to be talking about two blue genes having two different loci where all parbue types are allel of blue1 and emerald being allel of blue2 ? how does this blue2 mutant look like ?

[Ring0Neck]

Hi Sherjil,

My view is simply Emerald being a Parblue based on data thusfar.
Not much point in debating this before a breeding season that should give us lots of data/info.
In previous post i was mostly asking rather than telling, reaching unchartered gen. territory for me.

A to your Q: If there is a second Blue Locus it could well be very similar to Blue Locus in phenotype.

It is possible that we have not seen the blue2 yet... if there is one, it is very likely that it would be allelic to B1.

In green cheeks we have Turquoise but no Blue as yet.
The same can be true for B2, we have a Parblue @B2 (emerald) but we have not bred a B2B2 bird!?!? or we did but was never noticed. to breed B2B2 we need both parents to be SF Emeralds

(If Emerald is= Parblue2@B1 then we would breed B1B2, B2B2 & B1B1 birds and phenotype proximity of say 98% pritty much similar looking blue birds phenotype.)

In saying all the above it is probably 100% wrong apart from the first sentence

[madas]

(If Emerald is= Parblue2@B1 then we would breed B1B2, B2B2 & B1B1 birds and phenotype proximity of say 98% pritty much similar looking blue birds phenotype.)

But i have my doubts that the B1B2 would be a "blue" looking birds.

[Johan S]

Hi Ring0Neck you seem to be talking about two blue genes having two different loci where all parbue types are allel of blue1 and emerald being allel of blue2 ? how does this blue2 mutant look like ?

Hi Sherjil, you have it halfway right. The implication of a possible second blue is true, but not of two different loci. Rather, as with the budgerigar, the thought is that both blue types are of the same locus and t

In saying all the above it is probably 100% wrong apart from the first sentence

LOL, coincidence that these were my thoughts:

My view is simply Emerald being a Parblue based on data thusfar.

Ring0, that statement would require three things to be true: 1) there is a data set available , 2) the mutation is allelic to the blue locus, and 3) that the bird is carrying psittacin.

1) The data set publicly available so far on work with parblues and emeralds is rather limited. I'm very happy to go on what Mike has revealed to date (sample space/population size of 7).

2) Mike's results so far is that emerald is allelic to the blue and parblue genes. It seems very plausible and will hopefully be confirmed towards the end of the year.

3) Informal UV investigations have shown that an emerald bird looks nothing under UV light like any bird that carries psittacin (the wildtype and parblues) and any bird with no visible psittacin (blue). I am missing any kind of data that would suggest otherwise and prove that an EmeraldBlue or Emerald carries psittacin. Just the same, there is no data that I know of that shows it has no visible psittacin. And UV suggests it is different from anything that we know (or think we know...).

If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to your conclusion considering 3? If you have information that I'm missing, I'm very keen to have a look at it.

[Sherjil]

Hi Sherjil,

My view is simply Emerald being a Parblue based on data thusfar.
Not much point in debating this before a breeding season that should give us lots of data/info.
In previous post i was mostly asking rather than telling, reaching unchartered gen. territory for me.

A to your Q: If there is a second Blue Locus it could well be very similar to Blue Locus in phenotype.

It is possible that we have not seen the blue2 yet... if there is one, it is very likely that it would be allelic to B1.

In green cheeks we have Turquoise but no Blue as yet.
The same can be true for B2, we have a Parblue @B2 (emerald) but we have not bred a B2B2 bird!?!? or we did but was never noticed. to breed B2B2 we need both parents to be SF Emeralds

(If Emerald is= Parblue2@B1 then we would breed B1B2, B2B2 & B1B1 birds and phenotype proximity of say 98% pritty much similar looking blue birds phenotype.)

In saying all the above it is probably 100% wrong apart from the first sentence

Well it seems interesting. Yes I agree that in quite a few species of parrots the normal blue mutation hasn't been discovered yet. One more example is of the peach face love birds where we have the two parblue variants i.e. dutch blue & whiteface blue but no normal blue yet.

Now coming back to ringnecks; for any given gene (e.g. Alpha) its allel will be an alternative mutant gene (Alpha1) where both of them reside at same location on the chromosome called "locus".The locus can house one copy of the gene i.e. either the original gene (Alpha) or its mutant allel (Alpha1) but not both. Keeping in mind this definition, here is a hypothesis about B1 & B2

If we do have two different blues and hence two loci B1 & B2 where allels of B1 are the parblue variants (turquoise , indigo & sapphire) while allel of B2 is emerald, then emerald cant be allelic with parblue because it resides at a different location called B2-locus. However emerald can be recessive or dominant w.r.t. B1-locus mutations. I can imagine emerald as the 3rd primary base i.e. green series , blue1 series & blue2 series birds. Who knows emerald is itself blue2 ;)

On the contrary lets suppose B2 although has same phenotype effect in its homozygous form as B1; but still they are different genes (based upon diff locations on the chromosome b1-locus and b2-locus) and cant create a blue phenotype if we have one copy from B1 and other from B2 in a one bird. Such a bird should be visually normal green split for B1 split for B2.

[Sherjil]

Hi Ring0Neck you seem to be talking about two blue genes having two different loci where all parbue types are allel of blue1 and emerald being allel of blue2 ? how does this blue2 mutant look like ?

Hi Sherjil, you have it halfway right. The implication of a possible second blue is true, but not of two different loci. Rather, as with the budgerigar, the thought is that both blue types are of the same locus and t

In saying all the above it is probably 100% wrong apart from the first sentence

LOL, coincidence that these were my thoughts:

My view is simply Emerald being a Parblue based on data thusfar.

Ring0, that statement would require three things to be true: 1) there is a data set available , 2) the mutation is allelic to the blue locus, and 3) that the bird is carrying psittacin.

1) The data set publicly available so far on work with parblues and emeralds is rather limited. I'm very happy to go on what Mike has revealed to date (sample space/population size of 7).

2) Mike's results so far is that emerald is allelic to the blue and parblue genes. It seems very plausible and will hopefully be confirmed towards the end of the year.

3) Informal UV investigations have shown that an emerald bird looks nothing under UV light like any bird that carries psittacin (the wildtype and parblues) and any bird with no visible psittacin (blue). I am missing any kind of data that would suggest otherwise and prove that an EmeraldBlue or Emerald carries psittacin. Just the same, there is no data that I know of that shows it has no visible psittacin. And UV suggests it is different from anything that we know (or think we know...).

If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to your conclusion considering 3? If you have information that I'm missing, I'm very keen to have a look at it.

Just one question Johan & this will clear my doubts : Can a gene locus house two genes ? examples will be helpful

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Lee
Have you had a close look yet at the yellow undertail of your Emerald Alexandrines and compared it with the yellow carried by wildtype birds? Can you post a photo please of the comparison.
Kind regards
Mike

[Sherjil]

Sherjil I intially suggested to Johan that the range of turq viz sapphire , indigo turq and the so called other parblue(saddleback) all belong in one family allele and the emerald possibly in the next allele ..in the blue locus.
since it is with this same blue that both respond and produce their individual blue phenotypes,, imo opinion it is the same locus blue that both reside in.

Thanks Lee , so there is no blue2 locus and only one b-locus tht exist which means emerald , turquoise , indigo , saphire , saddleback all are allel of the one and only blue right ? This also means that all these allels of b-locus share the same inheritance mode i.e. autosomal recessive w.r.t. wild type.

Then your question : Can any form of parblue ever be a dominant mutation??
Answer : No

[Johan S]

Just one question Johan & this will clear my doubts : Can a gene locus house two genes ? examples will be helpful

Sherjil, I don't know the exact terms used by the people in genetics, but the way it works is that a locus holds/houses two copies of the same gene for the wildtype, one copy of the wildtype and one copy of a mutated wildtype gene for a heterozygous specimen, and two copies of the mutated gene for the homozygous specimen. If BL is one such copy of the blue locus for the wildtype, the the blue mutation would be bl. A wildtype would be BL/BL (or green split green), a green/blue would be BL/bl, and a blue would be bl/bl. This isn't the proper "codes", but only need to serve as example.

This also means that all these allels of b-locus share the same inheritance mode i.e. autosomal recessive w.r.t. wild type.

if the emerald is aunique parblue allele then does the master locus (blue in this case) dictates its nature of inheritance?
if this is the case then emerald cannot be dominant by way of the dictates of the inheritance mode of blue.

Unfortunately, gentlemen, this isn't the case. A little joke: The 'nature of inheritance' is very simple. Offspring inherit genetic material from their parents. Simple, hey? Nothing dominant or recessive about it.

As Recio pointed out, terms like recessive / dominant / etc. is rather the interaction of the alleles at a locus, i.e. inheritance = interaction.

Dominance is not inherent to an allele. It is a relationship between alleles; one allele can be dominant over a second allele, recessive to a third allele, and codominant to a fourth.
For further and easy reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics) .... type it to acces de rigth page (I do not understand why the ")" is not "accepted").

Almost all alleles of a locus that we know in aviculture interact the same to the wildtype (consider the SLino-locus with 3 alleles, bl-locus with 3 to possible 5+ alleles and the a-locus with 3 alleles). But this doesn't have to be the case. It simply means that blue and parblue can be recessive to the wildtype, while emerald can still be incomplete dominant (I think we'll all agree it isn't "fully" dominant) while all are allelic (in contrast to the a-locus where bronze fallow, pastel and NSLino are all recessive).

Genetics, it's a beautiful hobby.

PS: I have fixed Recio's link in his quote, you only need to click on it to access the page.

[madas]

Almost all alleles of a locus that we know in aviculture interact the same to the wildtype (consider the SLino-locus with 3 alleles, bl-locus with 3 to possible 5+ alleles and the a-locus with 3 alleles). But this doesn't have to be the case. It simply means that blue and parblue can be recessive to the wildtype, while emerald can still be incomplete dominant (I think we'll all agree it isn't "fully" dominant) while all are allelic (in contrast to the a-locus where bronze fallow, pastel and NSLino are all recessive).

I still believe all alleles of a locus have the same interaction regarding the wildtype allele. There are more then a handful species with a known emerald resp. aqua mutation. And in all cases its interaction is recessive regarding the wildtype allele. So why should it be dominant for the IRN or Alex?

[Johan S]

Almost all alleles of a locus that we know in aviculture interact the same to the wildtype (consider the SLino-locus with 3 alleles, bl-locus with 3 to possible 5+ alleles and the a-locus with 3 alleles). But this doesn't have to be the case. It simply means that blue and parblue can be recessive to the wildtype, while emerald can still be incomplete dominant (I think we'll all agree it isn't "fully" dominant) while all are allelic (in contrast to the a-locus where bronze fallow, pastel and NSLino are all recessive).

I still believe all alleles of a locus have the same interaction regarding the wildtype allele.

Madas, everybody is fully entitled to their opinion. But consider: This is an opportunity for all of us to expand our knowledge on genetics. Here is an example copied from the web

For the sake of simplicity, we usually teach genetics using examples with only two possible alleles (A and a). But a single gene can actually have many possible alleles (A, a, A1, A2, A', etc.). For example, hair color in mice is determined by a single gene with a series of alleles, each resulting in different coloration. There are alleles for black, brown, agouti, gray, albino, and others. The twist here is that the same allele can be dominant or recessive depending on context. Allelic series are often written as agouti > black > albino. This means that agouti is dominant to black, and black is dominant to albino. (And agouti is necessarily also dominant to albino.) If the black allele is in the presence of an agouti allele, the mouse will be agouti because black is recessive to agouti. If that same black allele is paired with an albino allele, the mouse will be black since black is dominant to albino.

In the above example, if black is considered the wildtype, then we have a scenario where different alleles of the same locus inherits dominant and recessive to the wildtype. We would see the same thing if we knew theparblue as the wildtype in IRN, and I bet we wouldn't be having this conversation in that case, because we would have an example to put our minds to rest.

There are more then a handful species with a known emerald resp. aqua mutation. And in all cases its interaction is recessive regarding the wildtype allele. So why should it be dominant for the IRN or Alex?

Emerald resp. aqua. Who says emerald = aqua? It was always simply an assumption but a few authors. It could also be alleles (which answers your last question). I don't think we really know yet. In days gone by we referred to turquoise resp. pastel, or turquoise resp. indigo, but you would (and should) correct me if I do it today, because we investigated more and learnt how to differentiate them. If those mutations can be different, then so can emerald and aqua. We can also discuss how in some of those species you refer to, it is common to refer to indigo as turquoise...

Does aqua in the species referred to show the same effect as IRN under UV? I bet nobody has done it (except for budgies), but could be wrong. It would be damn interesting, though.

[madas]

For the sake of simplicity, we usually teach genetics using examples with only two possible alleles (A and a). But a single gene can actually have many possible alleles (A, a, A1, A2, A', etc.). For example, hair color in mice is determined by a single gene with a series of alleles, each resulting in different coloration. There are alleles for black, brown, agouti, gray, albino, and others. The twist here is that the same allele can be dominant or recessive depending on context. Allelic series are often written as agouti > black > albino. This means that agouti is dominant to black, and black is dominant to albino. (And agouti is necessarily also dominant to albino.) If the black allele is in the presence of an agouti allele, the mouse will be agouti because black is recessive to agouti. If that same black allele is paired with an albino allele, the mouse will be black since black is dominant to albino.

In the above example, if black is considered the wildtype, then we have a scenario where different alleles of the same locus inherits dominant and recessive to the wildtype. We would see the same thing if we knew theparblue as the wildtype in IRN, and I bet we wouldn't be having this conversation in that case, because we would have an example to put our minds to rest.

Yeah but black isn't the wildtype allele. Agouti is the wildtype allele from the A-locus. And btw. the hair color of a mice is determined by at least five genes: A, B, C, D, and S.

A/A; B/B is wildtype agouti
a/a; B/B is black
A/A; b/b is cinnamon
a/a; b/b is brown
...
and so on.

if a mice is an albino is handled by the c-locus. So as you can see you have an interaction between alleles of different locis. You are comparing apples with pears.

I thought we were discussing only alleles from one and the same loci? The b-loucs. And for my opinion all alleles of this loci interacting recessive regarding the wildtype allele. How they interact among each other except the wildtype doesn't matter. But for now all seem to interact incomplete co-dominant regarding the mutated b-allele. means turq, indigo, "sapphire", emerald interact incomplete dominant over blue.

[madas]

Madas hi,
I do not see any reason why , if dominant and recessive alleles reside in the same loci in mammals , it cannot recur in birds.

Lee please re-read my last post. The example for mammals which Johan posted was simply not correct regarding our discussion of emerald be dominant and parblue. The alleles Johan has mentioned are alleles of distinct loci. So for sure these can be dominant over the other. Same as violet is dominant over green and blue in IRNs. The result is a mixed phenotype. For your question we are talking about alleles of one and the same loci. These are miles of difference.

madas

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Madas et al
A most interesting debate for me and I won't attempt to expand on the genetic theory other than to agree with you but I would like to say a couple of things about relevant breeding results.
I have been breeding EmeraldBlue Cleartails and, as far as I can see, the emerald gene appears to change the psittacin pigmentation to a very pale cream at least over the entire area visible on a cleartail.This being so, any area of yellow in the plumage of an emerald bird, presumably of any species, would provide a good marker for the presence of the emerald gene.
To me, an important area of this debate has always been the presence of Lee's Emerald Alexandrines where Emerald is apparently dominant over wildtype. I don't keep Alexandrines but, if they have yellow in an appropriate location, then it would provide an excellent emerald marker because the difference between wildtype yellow and emerald's "pale cream" is very clear.
Do the Alexandrines carry an appropriate marker and do Lee's Emerald Alexandrines show pale cream instead of wild type yellow?
Kind regards
Mike

[madas]

Hi Madas et al
A most interesting debate for me and I won't attempt to expand on the genetic theory other than to agree with you but I would like to say a couple of things about relevant breeding results.
I have been breeding EmeraldBlue Cleartails and, as far as I can see, the emerald gene appears to change the psittacin pigmentation to a very pale cream at least over the entire area visible on a cleartail.This being so, any area of yellow in the plumage of an emerald bird, presumably of any species, would provide a good marker for the presence of the emerald gene.
To me, an important area of this debate has always been the presence of Lee's Emerald Alexandrines where Emerald is apparently dominant over wildtype. I don't keep Alexandrines but, if they have yellow in an appropriate location, then it would provide an excellent emerald marker because the difference between wildtype yellow and emerald's "pale cream" is very clear.
Do the Alexandrines carry an appropriate marker and do Lee's Emerald Alexandrines show pale cream instead of wild type yellow?
Kind regards
Mike

Yeah, but it's up to Lee to post quality pics of his Alexandrines. The small resolution pics we got don't help in this topic.
Perhaps Johan can take some pics if he visit Lee again.

[Johan S]

Here is an example copied from the web

For the sake of simplicity, we usually teach genetics using examples with only two possible alleles (A and a). But a single gene can actually have many possible alleles (A, a, A1, A2, A', etc.). For example, hair color in mice is determined by a single gene with a series of alleles, each resulting in different coloration. There are alleles for black, brown, agouti, gray, albino, and others. The twist here is that the same allele can be dominant or recessive depending on context. Allelic series are often written as agouti > black > albino. This means that agouti is dominant to black, and black is dominant to albino. (And agouti is necessarily also dominant to albino.) If the black allele is in the presence of an agouti allele, the mouse will be agouti because black is recessive to agouti. If that same black allele is paired with an albino allele, the mouse will be black since black is dominant to albino.

In the above example, if black is considered the wildtype, then we have a scenario where different alleles of the same locus inherits dominant and recessive to the wildtype. We would see the same thing if we knew theparblue as the wildtype in IRN, and I bet we wouldn't be having this conversation in that case, because we would have an example to put our minds to rest.

Yeah but black isn't the wildtype allele. Agouti is the wildtype allele from the A-locus. And btw. the hair color of a mice is determined by at least five genes: A, B, C, D, and S.

A/A; B/B is wildtype agouti
a/a; B/B is black
A/A; b/b is cinnamon
a/a; b/b is brown
...
and so on.

if a mice is an albino is handled by the c-locus. So as you can see you have an interaction between alleles of different locis. You are comparing apples with pears.

I thought we were discussing only alleles from one and the same loci? The b-loucs. And for my opinion all alleles of this loci interacting recessive regarding the wildtype allele. How they interact among each other except the wildtype doesn't matter. But for now all seem to interact incomplete co-dominant regarding the mutated b-allele. means turq, indigo, "sapphire", emerald interact incomplete dominant over blue.

It's always nice to quote people in context, Madas. But yes, you got caught me. I know nothing of mice other than that they make good snake food. As was mentioned, I merely copied the example from the internet. In the context, no mention was made of multiple loci. Seems as if Christine Ticknor, Ph.D. candidate, Yale University can, like myself, can learn something from you.

But, I'm not willing to let this go yet. I think we might agree, it is futile debating about dominance, when we keep using recessive examples like the blue locus. So, let's look at dominance from the point of view of the homozygous blue bird. To understand why I'd rather explain this from the blue point of view, one must differentiate between incomplete dominance and codominance. As background, with reference to Chapter 4 (second last paragraph of p. 110) of the following text:

Genetic Analysis: An Integrated Approach with MasteringGenetics
Mark F. Sanders
John L. Bowman
ISBN-13:
978-0-321-69086-9

(What I like about this is example is that it is never referred to which is the "wildtype", since the wildtype is irrelevant when discussing alleles and their interaction.)

The three alleles of the ABO gene are identified as IA, IB, and i, and the four blood groups are phenotypes produced by different combinations of these alleles. On the basis of genotype–phenotype (i.e., blood type) correlation, geneticists have concluded that IA and IB have complete dominance over i, and that IA and IB are codominant to one another. The complete dominance of IA and IB to i is indicated by the identification of blood type A in individuals whose genotype is IAIA or IAi, and of blood type B in individuals whose genotype is IBIB or IBi. The completely recessive nature of the i allele is confirmed by the observation that only ii homozygotes have blood type O. Lastly, codominance of IA and IB to one another is confirmed by the observation that blood type AB occurs only in individuals who have the heterozygous genotype IAIB.

We can use the above allele interaction exactly for the blue locus model proposed. Let's start "at the bottom", and work our way up.

1) "The completely recessive nature of the i allele is confirmed by the observation that only ii homozygotes have blood type O" - resp. the completely recessive nature of the bl allele is confirmed by the observation that only bl/bl homozygotes are blue.

2) "The complete dominance of IA ... to i is indicated by the identification of blood type A in individuals whose genotype is IAIA or IAi" - resp. the complete dominance of bl(E) (emerald) to bl is indicated by the identification of the emerald phenotype in individuals whose genotype is bl(E)/bl(E) or bl(E)/bl.

3) "The complete dominance of ... IB to i is indicated by the identification of ... blood type B in individuals whose genotype is IBIB or IBi. " - resp. the complete dominance of bl+ (wildtype) to bl is indicated by the identification of the green phenotype in individuals whose genotype is bl+/bl+ or bl+/bl.

I bet we'll all agree up to here without to much debate. Here is where it gets interesting:

4) "Lastly, codominance of IA and IB to one another is confirmed by the observation that blood type AB occurs only in individuals who have the heterozygous genotype IAIB." - resp. codominance of bl(E) and bl+ is confirmed by the observation that phenotype emerald green occurs only in individuals who have heterozygous genotype bl(E)/bl+.

Alternatively (as commonly accepted), bl+ will be completely dominant over bl(E). Recall, for incomplete dominance of just the two alleles bl(E) and bl+, by "looking from the bottom up" we'd have bl+/bl+ > bl(E)/bl+ bl(E)/bl(E), which translates to three phenotypes. This is not in line with the commonly accepted, being a bl(E)/bl+ bird being the same phenotype as bl+/bl+ (the recessive green/emerald).

That's why I mentioned earlier, we should be clear in the difference between dominant, incomplete dominant and codominant.

How do we confirm this? The requirements for codominance are: A codominant interaction differs from incomplete dominance in that both the effects that a) made bl(E) dominant over bl, and b) the effect of bl+ over bl is visible at the same time in the bl(E)/bl+ individual. bl+, will make it difficult to identify the effects of bl(E), but not impossible. It was suggested to use UV, and it is a good suggestion.

Why do I think we are looking at codominance? Allow me to share an experience:

When I visited Lee in May 2013, he allowed me to study a flock of green Alexandrines individuals. He asked me what I thought and I wondered why I was looking at a bunch of green Alex. He pointed out one bird and told me to study it carefully. I did. But didn't know what I was looking for, so I saw nothing. He explained to me what I should look for to see the difference. Low and behold, I saw it. Then came the test. He asked me to identify the nest mates of that individual. I sure struggled, but he was patient. I finally made my choice and got it right 100%. So then came end of January 2014 and I visited him again. There was a new flock of green individuals, early 2013 offspring. And then this old man (I'm teasing ) puts me through the same test. The result this time? Same story. 100% success. But, I was lucky enough to visit him again a few months later, May 2014. Well, not as lucky as him, because once again, he has (this time much smaller) another flock of new green Alex, late 2013 chicks. And who can guess what happens now? Once again he wants me to pick out the Alex carrying the emerald gene. So I humour him, and make my choice. Lee, how did I do the last time. I think I got 100% again.

So the choice is yours (and damn good on anyone that got this far!), you can either believe that I am the luckiest person in the world to successfully pick out heterozygous green emeralds from three different flocks in a blind test, or you can start believing that emerald (at least in Alex) is not as recessive to green as one would read in books... I have had more difficulty identifying mistys!

Let's face it. How would we really know of the interaction of green and emerald? The same sources that say the mutation is recessive are the ones that have maintained from the very beginning to exclusively breed emerald to blue series. It is 2014 and we have a few blurry photos of one of the only "for sure" emerald green (green/emerald) birds. It is 2014 and I am yet to see a green/emerald advertised for sale in SA, Europe and Oz. How can we really know of the interaction without studying it? It is 2014 and we have only in the last few years seen EmeraldTurquoise, a bird that turns out completely different from what I expected! Why is it smooth and not patchy? (Thanks to Mike who made that sink in with me). I will keep digging until there is a suitable explanation. This kind of stuff keeps me awake at night.

[Johan S]

Yeah, but it's up to Lee to post quality pics of his Alexandrines. The small resolution pics we got don't help in this topic.
Perhaps Johan can take some pics if he visit Lee again.

Here are some 'old' photos. Did you forgot the last time this topic was discussed (also with so much passion)?



Difference like "night and day", or are they the same (supporting recessive)?

Look at the forehead above the beak of both birds. When I look at them, in a world where the wildtype Alex is blue, I can clearly see both "dominant" mutations, "green" and "emerald", combine in that forehead colour of the second bird, working beautifully together as codominant alleles.

The additional component in the second bird, when viewed alone, is the difference between a true blue bird and this forehead colour

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Johan
From what you say re Lee's Green Alexandrines it would seem clear that there is a mutation at work. The issue still for me is whether or not that mutation is the Emerald gene we see in IRNs. IMO, if it is Emerald, there should be a clear as day marker in the undertail yellow area of the plumage. Was that how you identified these birds as Emeralds?
Kind regards
Mike

[Ring0Neck]

... you can either believe that I am the luckiest person in the world to successfully pick out heterozygous green emeralds from three different flocks in a blind test, or you can start believing that emerald (at least in Alex) is not as recessive to green as one would read in books... I have had more difficulty identifying mistys!

Johan,
It does not really surprise me that you were able to ID these green/emerald Alexs ! & had trouble IDing Misty, most breeders don't even realise they have Mistys in their flock you're darn good i give you that
John F. also said (paraphrasing): "I told Aaron that it is a green/emerald because i did pick it, i could see it" (I asked Aaron & he confirmed he said so)
Yet we were Not able to ID it from the pics received from Aaron (they were not the best pics) perhaps now matured it is even harder to see emerald markers.
The real Question here is: What does that mean?

Is this proof of Emerald being dominant or co-d.? Is it recessive with identifiable markers for /emerald in green?
Is Emerald the 2nd blue itself as Sherjil asked and we have questioned this before!?

If we need a "microscope" to ID a green emerald it should not be called a dominant mutation IMO.
Just imagine the chaos, genetics should help not confuse, another explanation is needed or name.
How we see other mutations markers for splits, it is totally acceptable to me if we had markers for emerald splits.
Did anyone investigate other split Parblues's phenotype under heavy scrutiny? we could have similar results.

...The same sources that say the mutation is recessive are the ones that have maintained from the very beginning to exclusively breed emerald to blue series....

Not a fair statement.
Everyone but JF are in this group incl. Lee.
I still hope Emerald is more or s-thing else rather than just another parblue, just not enough supporting evidence esp. when looking at breeding results.
I have paired an emerald bird to a green vio this season, JF & Deon paired up a Homoz. Emerald to green series.
Heaps to work with after the breeding season.

[madas]

The three alleles of the ABO gene are identified as IA, IB, and i, and the four blood groups are phenotypes produced by different combinations of these alleles. On the basis of genotype–phenotype (i.e., blood type) correlation, geneticists have concluded that IA and IB have complete dominance over i, and that IA and IB are codominant to one another. The complete dominance of IA and IB to i is indicated by the identification of blood type A in individuals whose genotype is IAIA or IAi, and of blood type B in individuals whose genotype is IBIB or IBi. The completely recessive nature of the i allele is confirmed by the observation that only ii homozygotes have blood type O. Lastly, codominance of IA and IB to one another is confirmed by the observation that blood type AB occurs only in individuals who have the heterozygous genotype IAIB.

We can use the above allele interaction exactly for the blue locus model proposed. Let's start "at the bottom", and work our way up.

1) "The completely recessive nature of the i allele is confirmed by the observation that only ii homozygotes have blood type O" - resp. the completely recessive nature of the bl allele is confirmed by the observation that only bl/bl homozygotes are blue.

2) "The complete dominance of IA ... to i is indicated by the identification of blood type A in individuals whose genotype is IAIA or IAi" - resp. the complete dominance of bl(E) (emerald) to bl is indicated by the identification of the emerald phenotype in individuals whose genotype is bl(E)/bl(E) or bl(E)/bl.

3) "The complete dominance of ... IB to i is indicated by the identification of ... blood type B in individuals whose genotype is IBIB or IBi. " - resp. the complete dominance of bl+ (wildtype) to bl is indicated by the identification of the green phenotype in individuals whose genotype is bl+/bl+ or bl+/bl.

I bet we'll all agree up to here without to much debate. Here is where it gets interesting:

4) "Lastly, codominance of IA and IB to one another is confirmed by the observation that blood type AB occurs only in individuals who have the heterozygous genotype IAIB." - resp. codominance of bl(E) and bl+ is confirmed by the observation that phenotype emerald green occurs only in individuals who have heterozygous genotype bl(E)/bl+.

Alternatively (as commonly accepted), bl+ will be completely dominant over bl(E). Recall, for incomplete dominance of just the two alleles bl(E) and bl+, by "looking from the bottom up" we'd have bl+/bl+ > bl(E)/bl+ bl(E)/bl(E), which translates to three phenotypes. This is not in line with the commonly accepted, being a bl(E)/bl+ bird being the same phenotype as bl+/bl+ (the recessive green/emerald).

Chapeau!

Now your example makes sence. And everybody can understand your way of thinking.
If this explanation holds true then turq and indigo act the same way as emerald.

case 1) is the same
case 2) bl(tq)/bl(tq) or bl(tq)/bl resp. bl(ind)/bl(ind) or bl(ind)/bl fits nicely
case 3) is the same
case 4) bl(tq)/bl+ resp. bl(in)/bl+ should fit too

Your thoughts???

[madas]

A side note:

Are both birds of the same sub-species? The first looks like eupatria eupatria and the second like eupatria nipalensis.
So we had to check if the eupatria nipalensis isn't showing a distinct phenotype (body and head color) by nature and so the
emerald markers could be mistaken.

[Ring0Neck]

My next question to all : Which irn mutation has a closer relationship with the Dominant Dhani? the parblue turquoise series ? or parblue Emerald? Ringo please may I include a little devil (with a huge spanner)

we need new/more emoticans

relationship we won't be able to say, only through breeding results it can be determined, i know what you mean, Dhani looks more like an emerald .

...this is the first occasion I hear that the bird was visually identifiable....

Upsss?? I didn't mention it before? I thought i did.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Ben
Last I heard from you on Aaron's Green/emerald was that its chick proved emerald was a par blue. I know the proof didn't work if emerald was a dominant structural gene that produced yellow colour some how, but I hadn't realized you had closely inspected the bird and reversed your view and managed to identify it as an Emerald Green.
Could you please give us details of the markers that identified it as Emerald Green.
Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Lee
Would you be kind enough to comment on the undertail yellow colour on your Emerald Green Alexandrines as compared to Wildtype Green undertail colour.
Kind regards
mike

[Ring0Neck]

... you had closely inspected the bird and reversed your view and managed to identify it as an Emerald Green.

Mike,

I didn't do any of the above unfortunately.
My view is that it is Green/Emerald a Parblue mutation.

If you read my post again i simply told what John said,
Personally i was not able to see anything emerald in the pics from Aaron and i never seen the bird in person.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Ben
Until now I thought you and Willy saw Aaron's chick as 100% proof that emerald was a recessive par blue gene. As I remember it, that proof could only fail if emerald was a dominant gene that produced yellow colour some how.
Are you now saying that you can detect emerald in the split parent? If so what are the markers, underwing cream?
Kind regards
Mike

[Johan S]

Hi Johan
From what you say re Lee's Green Alexandrines it would seem clear that there is a mutation at work. The issue still for me is whether or not that mutation is the Emerald gene we see in IRNs. IMO, if it is Emerald, there should be a clear as day marker in the undertail yellow area of the plumage. Was that how you identified these birds as Emeralds?
Kind regards
Mike

Hi Mike, I looked at the shade of green colour on the forehead, as well as the silver shine in the cheek and neck/chest area. Your's is a good suggestion. I'll have another look when I visit that way again.

If we need a "microscope" to ID a green emerald it should not be called a dominant mutation IMO.

I have wondered for a long time about the exact same question. In the chapter I linked above the authors make mention that genetics (i.e. in general, not our small focus on avian genetics) is a very large problem, and do who look at mutations at a molecular level, a system level, the phenotype only, etc. In that lies the answer for our needs, most likely. But to consider the answer for the microscope, I'd respond, "We do it if it is necessary". Take again the blood type example. There is no evidence in our phenotype, yet it is crucial to know what blood type we are, so we go ahead to an experiment more in tune with identifying the ABO alleles.

...The same sources that say the mutation is recessive are the ones that have maintained from the very beginning to exclusively breed emerald to blue series....

Not a fair statement.
Everyone but JF are in this group incl. Lee.

My apologies for not being clear. I made no reference to anyone on the forum. By "the very beginning", I'm referring back to more than 20 years, long before we had emerald in SA and Oz.

Chapeau!

Now your example makes sence. And everybody can understand your way of thinking.
If this explanation holds true then turq and indigo act the same way as emerald.

case 1) is the same
case 2) bl(tq)/bl(tq) or bl(tq)/bl resp. bl(ind)/bl(ind) or bl(ind)/bl fits nicely
case 3) is the same
case 4) bl(tq)/bl+ resp. bl(in)/bl+ should fit too

Your thoughts???

I try! Thanks for sticking with it.

I agree with 2) and 4). The part we might disagree on is the interaction between bl(E) and bl(tq) resp bl(ind). Personally, I believe that bl(tq) and bl(ind) are recessive to bl+ (i.e. a typical haplosufficient wildtype allele with a loss of function hypomorphic mutation), and bl+ and bl(E) are codominant (where emerald is a gain of function neomorphic mutation). So we'd be looking at something like bl(E)/bl(E) > bl(E)/bl(tq/ind) > bl(tq/ind)/bl(tq/ind) when only considering emerald and our parblue alleles. To be really sure, we need to keep on looking at Mike's EmeraldTurqs.

The main reason I disagreed with you earlier when you stated that all alleles will inherit the same way to the wildtype is that that statement means that if one mutation causes a loss of function (typically recessive with parblue as example), then it is impossible for that same wildtype gene to mutate in such a way that there is a gain of function (typically dominant). I can't agree with that, because I'm a dreamer and I believe in evolution. Therefore, I believe that a single gene can mutate in an infinite amount of ways. Rarely will they add function (how many loci of dominant mutations do we know of that have alleles? I can't think of any right now), most times they will remove function to the point of being a null mutation and/or lethal (there are plenty of examples of loci with recessive alleles). And nature will filter out the best specimens. And the very best will become the wildtype, until the environment change, when a mutant may over time become the wildtype. Alleles of a locus can inherit differently, but it is as rare as any other gain of function mutation; probably more rare since there are multiple mutations.

A side note:

Are both birds of the same sub-species? The first looks like eupatria eupatria and the second like eupatria nipalensis.
So we had to check if the eupatria nipalensis isn't showing a distinct phenotype (body and head color) by nature and so the
emerald markers could be mistaken.

A good question best answered by the owner.

Edit: those are sibling nipalensis

PS: Thanks for a very stimulating discussion. I am having a great time!

[Ring0Neck]

Hi Ben
Until now I thought you and Willy saw Aaron's chick as 100% proof that emerald was a recessive par blue gene. As I remember it, that proof could only fail if emerald was a dominant gene that produced yellow colour some how.
Are you now saying that you can detect emerald in the split parent? If so what are the markers, underwing cream?
Kind regards
Mike

Mike,



bird was sold as possible split Emerald which is obviously much cheapper. if there was a clear evidence of emerald being a structural mutation JF wouldn't have sold it or sell as emerald green a much higher price
Both are convinced Emerald is Parblue.

in the pics from Aaron we can see red in the neckring which is not s-thing associated to emerald.

I'll ask JF what he has seen different in the /emerald chick but i'm pretty sure it was not yellow/cream that he saw.

[Johan S]

If we have a look at this picture, and focus on the region surrounding the neck ring (top and bottom), what are everyone's thoughts on this question(s): Is the amount of silver that we see in that region normal for a green violet, or does it seem a bit in overdrive and remind us of the cheek region of the heterozygous emerald green Alex?

I have paired an emerald bird to a green vio this season, JF & Deon paired up a Homoz. Emerald to green series.
Heaps to work with after the breeding season.

This is great news that you are doing it. If I recall correctly, Deon had difficulty and couldn't produce one last year. I think he'll try again this year.

[Ring0Neck]

Johan,

Is this what you're looking for in that pic?

[Johan S]

Hi Ben, yes, that's what I was referring to. It would be very nice to see two green series brothers, one carrying blue or turq, the other carrying emerald, side by side.

[Ring0Neck]

Hi Ben, yes, that's what I was referring to. It would be very nice to see two green series brothers, one carrying blue or turq, the other carrying emerald, side by side.

Johan,

Yes, that would be nice!

This green in above pic i believe is /turquoise first year breeding with him & i have another mature green/blue which in comparisson is a duller color, basic phenotype of wildtype.

My point: /Parblues possibly have visible markers on close inspection (diff. phenotype) when compared to wildtype, if so it will explain what/why JF saw a difference hence picking the /Emerald.

Has anyone done any comparisons of green/turquoise V green ?

[Johan S]

Hi Ben, yes, that's what I was referring to. It would be very nice to see two green series brothers, one carrying blue or turq, the other carrying emerald, side by side.

Johan,

Yes, that would be nice!

This green in above pic i believe is /turquoise first year breeding with him & i have another mature green/blue which in comparisson is a duller color, basic phenotype of wildtype.

My point: /Parblues possibly have visible markers on close inspection (diff. phenotype) when compared to wildtype, if so it will explain what/why JF saw a difference hence picking the /Emerald.

Has anyone done any comparisons of green/turquoise V green ?

We might run into problems due to normal variation, so that's why I suggested "keeping it in the family"

I wonder how much attention has really been paid to green vs green / turq or blue. I have a friend with a fairly certain green bird that doesn't split for blue or turq. 20+ chicks with a blue partner, and all green series. I'm going to have to go and take a close look at the bird.

[Ring0Neck]

... that's why I suggested "keeping it in the family"

How would you go about achieving this? & how long it'll that take someone to achieve this feat?
Imagine trying to breed green split for emerald and turq. resp. & to keep it in the family & confirm the correct splits

shortest way would be to have 3 proven matured birds:
a green not split for anything ( one sex)
a Hom Turq & Hom. Emerald (opposite sex of green)
and with all going well it could be done in 2 short years
even so only the green will be parent to all offspring.

** We might have to just bite the bullett & compare non related, keeping in mind and allowing for a certain degree of variation.


* Regarding Emerald being Parblue reminder:
A further fact that reinforces it is the fact that Aaron's /Emerald paired to a blue series bird (except parblue)
breeds: all greens offspring will be /blue &
all blue series offspring will be EmeraldBlues, which seems to be the case thus far for Aaron.

A benefit to having a /Emerald is the ease of IDing Emerald offspring right from the first breaking feather

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Lee
I have always hoped that that emerald might be a dominant structural gene, however my breeding results unfortunately point strongly to it being a parblue.
To my mind, the outstanding hope/evidence that a structural option was possible has always been the existence of your Emerald Green Alexandrines. IMO, if there is a dominant emerald gene in the alexandrines, it is likely that the same gene would appear in time in the IRN.
I had historically accepted that the gene in your alexandrines was the same as the emerald gene in my IRNs and, given your extensive knowledge and experience, I have historically simply accepted that to be the case. However, I am now starting to wonder if it might be a different gene.
As we know, the emerald gene in the IRN, when occurring in partnership with a blue gene, changes the psittacin signature from the bold yellow we see clearly in a lutino to a very pale cream colour over the entire plumage.
The alexandrines have an area of yellow pigmentation under the tail as I understand it (I don't keep them). It should provide a clear emerald indicator if the genes in the two species are the same. Can you please tell us what that yellow area looks like in both your Green and Blue Emerald alexandrines.
Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Lee
Thanks very much for the response. I find it particularly difficult because I only have IRNs not alexandrines. Looking forward to a pic of the undertail area in the EmeraldBlue or Emerald Blue
Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Lee
Can you please simply tell us what the different undertail yellow pigmentation looks like in a wildtype alexandrine, an Emerald green alexandrine and your Emerald Blue alexandrine.
Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Lee
Thank you very much for taking the time to take and post photos. The difference between EmeraldBlue and green series undertails in your alexandrines looks exactly like my IRN cleartails, in other words pale cream vs bright yellow.
Sorry about one more question, but does the undertail of your Emerald Green look any different to the bright yellow green series birds?
Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Lee
I have trouble getting them to face the correct way even when I catch them and put them in a photo cage. I sometimes sit there for ages trying to get the shot I need. Thanks again in advance.
Kind regards
mike

[prodigy]

Hi Lee, Any chance that you have a green Alex that is confirmed to split Indigo ?

[Johan S]

Peter, I've not heard of the appearance of turquoise or indigo alex, only blue and emerald. We'll have to wait patiently. Unless somebody has some good news.

[prodigy]

this is Lee we talking about thats why i asked

[Johan S]

this is Lee we talking about thats why i asked

[prodigy]

very clear even from behind that its Emerald

[Skyes_crew]

Lee...can you refresh my memory on the ages of the above pictured Alex's?

[Molossus2]

these are last seasons young. born arnound about oct 2013

[allair]

I am just breeding ringnecks for fun and are no profesional breeder at all but I can say the following
I have breed my first Emerald turquose female last year out of a Indigo and old terms Rainbow
She is totally diffrent like every one mentioned . the previous sesion I wast that lucky and there was just a blue male in the nest . but he is diffent to normal blue , he have a lot of cobalt blue at the back of his head and his tail seems to be much more flourecent . Going to breed him this year to a turquoise .
Also going to breed Two indigo`s together to see what the DF look like
Hope i did not confuse every one about this results .
Breeding ringneck for year just for the fun . only discovered about two years ago i have some intresting birds like indigo as part of my stock .
Seems reading thru this that ther might just be two diffrent kinds of blue , but they are close I dont know will see what happen in the nest this season

Thank you for a great forum

[Ring0Neck]

I have breed my first Emerald turquose female last year out of a Indigo and old terms Rainbow

Unfortunately you can not breed emerald from above pair.

It's like saying an English man married a French woman and they have 6 Chinese kids


We as humans sometimes see what we want to see, not what is really there, talking from experience & I learnt from it.

[madas]

It's like saying an English man married a French woman and they have 6 Chinese kids

Could be possible if both parents have gooks. The origin isn't always telling the exact appearance of a human.
The opposite way could fit even better: "It's like saying a Chinese man married a Japanese woman and they got 6 french kids."

The chance to find a Chinese among all European people is much more higher then finding a Frensh among all Chinese people.

[allair]

I have breed my first Emerald turquose female last year out of a Indigo and old terms Rainbow

Unfortunately you can not breed emerald from above pair.

It's like saying an English man married a French woman and they have 6 Chinese kids


We as humans sometimes see what we want to see, not what is really there, talking from experience & I learnt from it.

Like i said that is what happened i can even send you the picture of the bird . so also like i have said I am breeding this birds for years for a pure intresst . May aim was never to breed scares mutations nor to impress any body . I have only found out what i have a year ago visiting Pieter and I was more than surprise . My aim is still the same I have them for my intress in them . You may say what you want but Ihave the bird to prove it . i am able to send you pictures of the bird at any time as well as the pictures of the indigo`s . no problem .

[allair]

Indigo male

[allair]

Emerald youngster
Will take new photo`s soon

[allair]

Emerald younster , yellow /cream in tail
I will post new photo soon , she it big now

[Johan S]

That looks like a normal turquoise youngster, allair. The green wash isn't evenly spread. Maybe a new photo will show it in a different light.

[Skyes_crew]

Hi allair,

Please don't feel like you have to prove anything to anyone. There are some people that aren't real great at being diplomatic in their responses here. That being said, I have a few par blue birds that also display the yellow/cream underside of tail and wing, but they are not emeralds. I was confused by it too. I'm not saying your bird is not an emerald, but that the yellow/cream can also occur in turquoise and indigo. Looking forward to any new pics you have

Melissa

[allair]

Melissa thank you so much for your response , I agree with you and maybe some people dont like the results and fact that is what happen , and you are 100% right . But i want to say the following , I have done a lot of comparisons in terms of florecence lights , and all the information about the Emerald markings and a lot more and it match up I folow this forum from 2012 and made copies of tail feather a lot of other information . and with all respect Johan s I have normal
turquoise birds in stock and they are not even remotely looking the some , I dont think you know the diffrance at all and I am so sorry wasting your and all the experts in this forums time but but like they said breeding a chineese out of french parent are not possible so I rather just read the forum like before and just keep to what i do for many year enjoying the birds and the joy the I have doing that . I can see that the response is not of help but rather hostile . My indigo`s are maybe not even idigo so what do i know ?

i have read may opinions and may genitic calculations and so on that I must agree is most intresting and of good value and I have always enjoyed the forum , just did not think that people that claim to be experts , I am not , dont consider reality and if the spoted someting diffrent rather give positive and informative information before they make sarcastic and insulting statements , give every person a change tha make his statement and give the fact before you attack him and try to be sarcastic and rude . Thank you for a great forum and sorry to waste your valued time . end of the day if you dont have the birds in stock and did not bread them how do you know what you are talking about ?
Have a nice day and sorry but i am not English

[Ring0Neck]

I don't think i was rude ! not more so than your statement claiming you have an emerald bred from Indigo & turquoise.

[Skyes_crew]

Allair...do you happen to have a pic of the mom? You said she was a rainbow, which I believe is a turquoise pallid. Could she possibly be an indigo or emerald pallid? I'm interested to see the outcome of your photos.

[Johan S]

Melissa thank you so much for your response , I agree with you and maybe some people dont like the results and fact that is what happen , and you are 100% right . But i want to say the following , I have done a lot of comparisons in terms of florecence lights , and all the information about the Emerald markings and a lot more and it match up I folow this forum from 2012 and made copies of tail feather a lot of other information . and with all respect Johan s I have normal
turquoise birds in stock and they are not even remotely looking the some , I dont think you know the diffrance at all and I am so sorry wasting your and all the experts in this forums time but but like they said breeding a chineese out of french parent are not possible so I rather just read the forum like before and just keep to what i do for many year enjoying the birds and the joy the I have doing that . I can see that the response is not of help but rather hostile . My indigo`s are maybe not even idigo so what do i know ?

i have read may opinions and may genitic calculations and so on that I must agree is most intresting and of good value and I have always enjoyed the forum , just did not think that people that claim to be experts , I am not , dont consider reality and if the spoted someting diffrent rather give positive and informative information before they make sarcastic and insulting statements , give every person a change tha make his statement and give the fact before you attack him and try to be sarcastic and rude . Thank you for a great forum and sorry to waste your valued time . end of the day if you dont have the birds in stock and did not bread them how do you know what you are talking about ?
Have a nice day and sorry but i am not English

Allair, I can assure you, I have seen about 15 real emeralds in the flesh at 6 different breeders across the country, much more so than most likely anybody in South Africa, bar Deon Smith. I've traveled more than 8000 km in the last two years alone to enable me that privilege. That's more than most people travel in their lifetime to go see birds. I'm not merely throwing ideas around based on pictures I have seen on the internet as you seem to suggest. I've done the hard miles and I've studied more of these birds than you, I bet. I was never rude in my response, and stand by what I said, being in that picture it doesn't look to have an even psittacin distribution, and I'd like to see more pictures. Please don't read anything else into my previous response. The other guys were having some fun, lighten up boet. They were merely expressing how remarkable it would be to breed spontaneously an emerald without that gene in the parents.

Since you seem to have done your homework, could you please share with us what UV light you used in your investigation? What/who was the source/manufacturer of the UV light, and was it a tube/LED?

[allair]

Johan I found photo`s on this forum a while ago that look very similar to the bird . I will try and locate them again .
and yes the mother was a turquoise palid . I still have a photo but not the bird any more . the problem with this bird is that the color change so much when one thake photo`s that it is vey difficult to cupture the thrue colors
what i can say is that i have a Indigo female that i compare her to and the big diffrance is the greens on the head
the green is a lot more that the indigo as well as the tail this bird have clear yellow /cream tail markings and the indigo not
in appairance the bird is more brighter and the color chage a lot from angels , much more that the indigo`s
and she is a lot greener that the indigo`s and vastley diffrent to normal turquoise .
as far as i know one get turquise , indigo , and emerald and a bird with even less color on the wings than indigo
So the quistion is what is she then if not Indigo ?
I have put her with normal blue to see if she will breed this season , seems she is not intrested in him yet
so i will see when can i take photo`s
the best will be to do it with the indigo hen so one can see the diffrance but she is already going to the nest
so i dont want to do it right know .

but i also must admit I have never seen a Emerald only the pitcures . Also yes one thing that I must say she have some darker blue/green markings on her wing that may be seem as not smooth but patchy .
The Indigo male is the father

[Johan S]

Allair, it sounds to me from the description that you have yourself a bird where the indigo gene from the father and the turquoise gene from the mother has matched up, and she might very well be a TurquoiseIndigo. I'll bet you good money you are going to look long and hard to find a proven one of those to compare with your bird. As a matter of fact, I've seen many more emeralds than for sure TurquoiseIndigo. In SA, most breeders don't care about the difference between the indigo and turquoise, and that's why it's going to be near impossible finding the TurquoiseIndigo. It makes me even more curious about some more recent photos, when you can please. I'd love to see the blend of green of turquoise and aqua-like colour of the indigo.

As for testing with a blue bird, that is perfect! If you breed only TurquoiseBlue and InidigoBlue, then your mystery is solved. The bird will also most likely change quite a lot towards her mid-summer moult.

PS: If I haven't said so before, welcome to the forum!

[allair]

[quote="Johan S"]Allair, it sounds to me from the description that you have yourself a bird where the indigo gene from the father and the turquoise gene from the mother has matched up, and she might very well be a TurquoiseIndigo. I'll bet you good money you are going to look long and hard to find a proven one of those to compare with your bird.

Johan I think that you may be right , Seems she may just take the blue male . I will try to take some new photo`s soon
thank you so much for your input . maybe that is the reason her head looks much more emerald color than Indigo and the patches instead of smooth green on the wings .

[allair]

quote="Johan S"]Allair, it sounds to me from the description that you have yourself a bird where the indigo gene from the father and the turquoise gene from the mother has matched up, and she might very well be a TurquoiseIndigo. I'll bet you good money you are going to look long and hard to find a proven one of those to compare with your bird.

Johan I think that you may be right , Seems she may just take the blue male . I will try to take some new photo`s soon
thank you so much for your input . maybe that is the reason her head looks much more emerald color than Indigo and the patches instead of smooth green on the wings .[/quote]

Under subject Emerald Deep trabots mention that he have patchy emerald younsters .
there is also some photo`s and one can see they are similar in patches for intresting sake

I think you are right but look at this and under topic and you will see why I think in the Emerald direction , the color is very similar , eyes are very similar and even Emerand younster photo`s are similar , then there is also refrance to the patches on the youg emeralds under subject Emerald Deep . Johan but than you and lets see if se go to nest what happen

[allair]

It is very difficults to see the amount of green in the bird with this photo`s
Also she is very youg so she will only have her full color in about 2 -3 years if she is Indigo /tueqoise
So I think one will have much better idee next year about her color and how much it will change
The photo in the small cage when she was inside give one a better idee of the greens

[Skyes_crew]

Allair, does your baby look like this...







Blue for reference in front

[allair]

Skyes_crew I have looked at your photo`s , the feet , the greens and also the blue in front that helped a lot
I have also notice the slightly darker greens just above the flight featers and I must say yes . look very much the same
The greens above beak are higly reflective , difficult to discripe but yes much more a reflective green that the blue of the indigo`s .

Yes I think it is very much the same , the more I look at it the more I see similar futures , flights , head , wings , nails , feet and so on , so kindly what mutation is the bird on the foto `s please before i make the wrong conclusion

And thak you for your intrest to help

[Johan S]

Hi allair,

your's seem to be a 'saddle' type parblue/turquoise from the picture. Thanks for sharing.

[Skyes_crew]

Hi allair,

The bird in the pictures is a 4 month old IndigoTurquoise hen. I expect her color to change a lot over the next couple of moults. Keep us posted with pics of your bird as He/she matures

[Molossus2]

Mike,Willie ,,, my emerald green harlequin irn (the one i posted pics of sometime ago) produced what appears to be an emerald blue..it is the first of four chicks, and its pins are just pushing out. Whadya know? The green harlequin I stated to be an emerald green appears to be just that.
I will post pics of the young and the parents in a few days.
Mike have you got any update on your emerald turqs offspring?

[madas]

Mike,Willie ,,, my emerald green harlequin irn (the one i posted pics of sometime ago) produced what appears to be an emerald blue..it is the first of four chicks, and its pins are just pushing out. Whadya know? The green harlequin I stated to be an emerald green appears to be just that.
I will post pics of the young and the parents in a few days.
Mike have you got any update on your emerald turqs offspring?

What kind of bird is the "emerald green harlequin" paired to? Blue series?

[Molossus2]

Madas the green emerald hen is paired to a blue normal cock.
4 chicks..still to feather.

[madas]

Madas the green emerald hen is paired to a blue normal cock.
4 chicks..still to feather.

thx. If you got one plain blue chick then emerald could be dominant. If all 4 are emerald blue series then it is 99% a rec. mutation but with small visible markers in the green series.

[Molossus2]

Madas with my luck...all will be emerald...lol. and I knew you'd see it my way...more lol..
On the other side .. my averages with harlequin to violets are throwing lousy odds...go figure..

[Recio]

Madas the green emerald hen is paired to a blue normal cock.
4 chicks..still to feather.

thx. If you got one plain blue chick then emerald could be dominant. If all 4 are emerald blue series then it is 99% a rec. mutation but with small visible markers in the green series.

Hi Lee & Madas,

If you can see Emerald in the green series bird, it would mean that Emerald is dominant, but Emerald being dominant is not enough to say that it is a mutation of a different locus than Blue (to say that it is not a parblue). Anyway this fact would highly point or suggest that Emerald is a different mutation (we can not identify splits to blue or parblue in green series birds).

To be sure that Emerald is a different mutation you should get a blue bird in the offspring after pairing your Green Emerald to a Blue, as Madas said. It would mean that the Green Emerald mother is also split Blue, and then, Emerald and Blue alleles would be together in a phenotypic green bird, proving that they are not alleles of the same gene.

This risk to be a major challenge if Emerald and Blue are highly linked. We need to get 20 offspring without Blue to say with a p<0.05 that the mother is not carrying Blue and Emerald in a non linked situation. If we accept a possible linkage rate of 3%, as for Cin-SL-Ino, we will need far higher numbers (around 0.05 x 0.03 = 0.0015 = 0.15% = 667 birds offspring without any Blue). But if we ever can get one single Blue in the offspring it would be enough to prove it.

Best regards

Recio

[madas]

Madas the green emerald hen is paired to a blue normal cock.
4 chicks..still to feather.

thx. If you got one plain blue chick then emerald could be dominant. If all 4 are emerald blue series then it is 99% a rec. mutation but with small visible markers in the green series.

Hi Lee & Madas,

If you can see Emerald in the green series bird, it would mean that Emerald is dominant, but Emerald being dominant is not enough to say that it is a mutation of a different locus than Blue (to say that it is not a parblue). Anyway this fact would highly point or suggest that Emerald is a different mutation (we can not identify splits to blue or parblue in green series birds).

To be sure that Emerald is a different mutation you should get a blue bird in the offspring after pairing your Green Emerald to a Blue, as Madas said. It would mean that the Green Emerald mother is also split Blue, and then, Emerald and Blue alleles would be together in a phenotypic green bird, proving that they are not alleles of the same gene.

This risk to be a major challenge if Emerald and Blue are highly linked. We need to get 20 offspring without Blue to say with a p<0.05 that the mother is not carrying Blue and Emerald in a non linked situation. If we accept a possible linkage rate of 3%, as for Cin-SL-Ino, we will need far higher numbers (around 0.05 x 0.03 = 0.0015 = 0.15% = 667 birds offspring without any Blue). But if we ever can get one single Blue in the offspring it would be enough to prove it.

Best regards

Recio

Yeap. Mother is for sure split blue because Lee already got an "emerald blue". All we need is a homozygous blue. Time will tell.
But emerald is really a very attractive mutation. Nice silky shine on the whole body then sitting in the shadow or shelter.

madas

[Molossus2]

heres pics of the hen...her mate is normal blue..she was bred out of an emerald grey to a dark green. that makes her /blue.

[Molossus2]

Chick 2 pin feather = green...aaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhh

[Recio]

Yeap. Mother is for sure split blue because Lee already got an "emerald blue". All we need is a homozygous blue. Time will tell.
But emerald is really a very attractive mutation. Nice silky shine on the whole body then sitting in the shadow or shelter.

madas

Hi Madas,

Just a correction:

Yeap. Mother is for sure Emerald (or Split Emerald, depending on theories) because Lee already got an "emerald blue". All we need is a homozygous blue. Time will tell.
But emerald is really a very attractive mutation. Nice silky shine on the whole body then sitting in the shadow or shelter.

I agree. Best regards.

Recio

[Molossus2]

Recio ,, Madas et al... of the 2 pairs of alex :
pr 1 emerald green /blue - Albino
pr 2 Emerald green/blue - green/blue
I have been breeding emerald blues , emerald greens and greens. I lost 3 red eyed offspring and perhaps 6 other chicks
D I S due to bad incubator controls...
this season I have a chick pinning looks emerald blue or blue..
No blue chicks on perch for the previous 3 seasons..
Seems to share in irns results this far...proving perhaps the are similar mutations if not the same ..
aaaarrrrgggghhhhh. come on blues...just one ...please...

[madas]

Recio ,, Madas et al... of the 2 pairs of alex :
pr 1 emerald green /blue - Albino
pr 2 Emerald green/blue - green/blue
I have been breeding emerald blues , emerald greens and greens. I lost 3 red eyed offspring and perhaps 6 other chicks
D I S due to bad incubator controls...
this season I have a chick pinning looks emerald blue or blue..
No blue chicks on perch for the previous 3 seasons..
Seems to share in irns results this far...proving perhaps the are similar mutations if not the same ..
aaaarrrrgggghhhhh. come on blues...just one ...please...

Hm, very sad the lost of chicks. What kind of incubator do you use? The brinsea products seem to do a right job.

madas

[Molossus2]

grumbach..calibrated off by -2.5 deg.