white on white

Moderator: Mods

Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Willy,

That's what i thought last year too. No Edged in Oz. However i have found a "colony" from a breeder he called them fallow and he believed that you can not have edged (fallow) without cinnamon. (of course it's a matter of how you pair them up to remove cinnamon)
The reason we don't see Edged in OZ is because it is tangled in with cinnamon mutation and breeders automatically ignore the birds altogether and only a few have survived.
I bought most of this colony and i kept a few pairs and spares.

The pic below of 2 pairs (left to right)
Turq.blue Edged/Cinn - Turq.grey edged cinnamon hen ; sf or df turq (blue?) cinnamon edged male and blue edged hen
http://www.parakeet.me/irn/f/edge/edgex.jpg

I have circled the edged pattern on the male, the edged cinnamon is not as easy to identify as Tienie and others will tell you

Here's another pic of the young pair:
the turquoise is son of the mature pair in prev. pic
i think he is a df turq and df edged as well as cinnamon & the hen their phenotype always look like df edged although they are only sf
http://www.parakeet.me/irn/f/edge/edp.jpg
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

Ben, I do remember many 'Fallows' 10-15 years ago of which cocks were all supposedly split Cinnamon. I had a Blue one but with basically the same coloured bird but with the colour washed out of the flights I couldn't see the point of breeding them. They are in Bastiaan's book as Dominant Edged which is what I recall they were, dominant. You are probably correct about Ron's bird, he probably wasn't aware that the Cinnamon Blue he used was also Edged. The image I posted certainly backs up your opinion. I stand corrected.
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

it says on his (Ron's) website that, that Deep Blue Cinnamon is a SL Edged hen.
You are correct, Ron has changed the label since I last looked. Thanks for the update.
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Ben, any chance of getting both (Indigoblue and Blue) in the one shot


Willy has Indigo blues, perhpas he has a pic of a mature one next to a blue?

From what i see, i believe that Indigo certainly is darker then a blue. right Willy?
Indigo in the pic i acquired from Willy, unless he has given me a Cobalt Indigo :shock: .

-------------
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

Sorry, nothing alongside a plain Blue. I wouldn't call them darker, they are definately bluer than a TurquoiseBlue but still greener than a Blue. IndigoBlue is blue, TurquoiseBlue is green to a normal person. We are not normal.

Note the different level of patching on 2 mature cocks, note the white rings vs salmon coloured for TurquoiseBlue. A prime example of a psitticin heavy IndigoBlue looking like a lighter TurquoiseBlue, except for the ring of course.........or, the heavy bird may be a df Indigo, the breeder did say he had bred a couple.

[URL=http://s1305.photobucket.com/user/ ... .jpg[/img][/url]

[URL=http://s1305.photobucket.com/user/ ... .jpg[/img][/url]
sheyd
Posts: 1293
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:22 pm

Re: white on white

Post by sheyd »

Willy, thanks for the pics. But you have me thinking...
The Indigoblue hen you posted alongside the Turquoiseblue cock, could be mistaken for an Emerald :shock: (at least from the picture).

What is the feather colour structure like on an Indigoblue- anyone looked at them? What about df/sf Turquoiseblue..what do their feathers look like?

I would love to see a line up in this order consisting of Blue, sfIndigoblue, dfIndigo sfEmerald, sfTurquoiseblue, dfTurquoise and normal Green. :mrgreen:

Anyone bred a dfTurquoise (Blue) to a dfIndigo (Blue)?
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Anyone bred a dfTurquoise (Blue) to a dfIndigo (Blue)?

I doubt it.
It crossed my mind, but i won't do it this season.
I am curious the ringneck color of the turq indigo cockbird...
--
I will take some pics tomorrow of the young indigoblue & blue in same cage.
------------
I'm not sure what to do. your suggestions welcome.
i have a blue pied hen & i'm thinking of pairing her to either one of:
Turqblue df edged cinn male
or violet-cobolt/cinn male
or violet edged cinn male

Tuq looks really good in pieds

thoughts? what would you do?

trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

The Indigoblue hen you posted alongside the Turquoiseblue cock, could be mistaken for an Emerald (at least from the picture).
Sheyd, at a glance yes, however if you look closer you can see the psitticin patching on the wings and back. An Emerald doesn't show any such patching being a homogeneous colour basically.

IMO the breeding of the heteroalleles EmeraldTurquoise, IndigoTurquoise, EmeraldIndigo is a waste of aviary space. The phenotypes will be in between the component mutations in appearance and therefore of no greater appeal than either. When you then breed these to a Blue the young revert to being one or the other. As Emeralds are far more valuable than the other two, it makes no sense to dilute their future output in financial terms by 50%. This is a image of a bird I owned which I believed to be a Dark IndigoTurquoise. It was bluer than a TurquoiseBlue but has much patching for an Indigo and had red in the ring not visible in the image. Unfortunately it was split NSL Ino as well as CHCT so was sold off.

Image
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

This is a image of a bird I owned which I believed to be a Dark IndigoTurquoise. It was bluer than a TurquoiseBlue but has much patching for an Indigo and had red in the ring not visible in the image. Unfortunately it was split NSL Ino as well as CHCT so was sold off.
I must apologise, this bird could not have been Dark TurquoiseIndigo. On checking my records this bird was bred to a Blue and bred 2 Cobalts, a ParblueBlue and a NSL Ino. The bird had to be either IndigoBlue or TurquoiseBlue. It looks like an IndigoBlue however the ring definitely had some red in it up close, leading me to my erroneous conclusion. I will never know having sold the whole NSL Ino corrupted family for a song. I don't know why I didn't pick it up earlier, must have been distracted by the disaster of finding that red eyed bird in the nest.
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

As Emeralds are far more valuable than the other two, it makes no sense to dilute their future output in financial terms by 50%.
This statement is also without merit. An EmeraldTurquoise bred to a Blue will still produce 50% EmeraldBlues just like an EmeraldBlue bred to a Blue. Bad Willy.

I still wouldn't breed these heteroalleles for the fact that as birds get moved on their genetic make-up often gets lost. I can't see how applying duller green patches to an awesome coloured green bird enhances the beast.
madas
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: white on white

Post by madas »

trabots wrote:
This is a image of a bird I owned which I believed to be a Dark IndigoTurquoise. It was bluer than a TurquoiseBlue but has much patching for an Indigo and had red in the ring not visible in the image. Unfortunately it was split NSL Ino as well as CHCT so was sold off.
I must apologise, this bird could not have been Dark TurquoiseIndigo. On checking my records this bird was bred to a Blue and bred 2 Cobalts, a ParblueBlue and a NSL Ino. The bird had to be either IndigoBlue or TurquoiseBlue. It looks like an IndigoBlue however the ring definitely had some red in it up close, leading me to my erroneous conclusion. I will never know having sold the whole NSL Ino corrupted family for a song. I don't know why I didn't pick it up earlier, must have been distracted by the disaster of finding that red eyed bird in the nest.
So the blue hen was split for NSLino too? :)

madas
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

Correct. The NSL Ino chick was a male.
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

trabots wrote:
This is a image of a bird I owned which I believed to be a Dark IndigoTurquoise. It was bluer than a TurquoiseBlue but has much patching for an Indigo and had red in the ring not visible in the image. Unfortunately it was split NSL Ino as well as CHCT so was sold off.
I must apologise, this bird could not have been Dark TurquoiseIndigo. On checking my records this bird was bred to a Blue and bred 2 Cobalts, a ParblueBlue and a NSL Ino. The bird had to be either IndigoBlue or TurquoiseBlue. It looks like an IndigoBlue however the ring definitely had some red in it up close, leading me to my erroneous conclusion. I will never know having sold the whole NSL Ino corrupted family for a song. I don't know why I didn't pick it up earlier, must have been distracted by the disaster of finding that red eyed bird in the nest.
And this statement brings me right back to the large amounts of variation seen in the parblues. Although I will entertain the idea of indigo and turquoise, and still don't see the big deal in separating them as two unique mutations. If we do it for them, then if have to do it for every other parblue phenotype. This means we could sit with the likes of turquoise, indigo, saphire, saddled and this new "in between indigo and turquoise". Where do we draw the line? Call them all new mutations when DF has shown them unique, or just bunch them together as turquoise as most people know them? :?:
sheyd
Posts: 1293
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:22 pm

Re: white on white

Post by sheyd »

Ring0Neck wrote: I am curious the ringneck color of the turq indigo cockbird...
I'd imagine somewhere in between...palest/faintest orange perhaps?
--
I will take some pics tomorrow of the young indigoblue & blue in same cage.
That'd be great- if you could *thumbs up*
------------
I'm not sure what to do. your suggestions welcome.
i have a blue pied hen & i'm thinking of pairing her to either one of:
Turqblue df edged cinn male
^ I'd pair as above- not a fan of the pieds- but Turquoise does make them more attractive (imo).
sheyd
Posts: 1293
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:22 pm

Re: white on white

Post by sheyd »

trabots wrote:
As Emeralds are far more valuable than the other two, it makes no sense to dilute their future output in financial terms by 50%.
This statement is also without merit. An EmeraldTurquoise bred to a Blue will still produce 50% EmeraldBlues just like an EmeraldBlue bred to a Blue. Bad Willy.

I still wouldn't breed these heteroalleles for the fact that as birds get moved on their genetic make-up often gets lost. I can't see how applying duller green patches to an awesome coloured green bird enhances the beast.
no, I wouldn't want to either..now that I know what they look like. Emerald is a beautiful mutation- it doesn't need Turquoise (or Indigo) to make it more 'special'- imo it takes away from the look.
sheyd
Posts: 1293
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:22 pm

Re: white on white

Post by sheyd »

Johan S wrote:Where do we draw the line? Call them all new mutations when DF has shown them unique, or just bunch them together as turquoise as most people know them? :?:
I'd be inclined to choose the first option- if it is proven that there are indeed homozygous phenotypes (of preposed new mutations) then why label them all under one heading?

can anyone take pictures of the neck rings of; sfIndigo, dfIndigo, sfTurquiose & dfTurquoise Blues?
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

And this statement brings me right back to the large amounts of variation seen in the parblues. Although I will entertain the idea of indigo and turquoise, and still don't see the big deal in separating them as two unique mutations. If we do it for them, then if have to do it for every other parblue phenotype. This means we could sit with the likes of turquoise, indigo, saphire, saddled and this new "in between indigo and turquoise". Where do we draw the line? Call them all new mutations when DF has shown them unique, or just bunch them together as turquoise as most people know them?
Johan, I thought I had long ago proved the uniqueness of the Turquoise and Indigo homozygotes. They are totally different. The heterozygotes I have shown to have much variation in phenotype and possibly even overlap, however it is ridiculous and unscientific to "draw the line" based on these ParblueBlues when the full expression of the Parblue is what the mutation is in fact. Deon mentions this too in his new book. The real learning starts with the mutation in its own right. If Turquoise was discovered in IRNs long before birds with a single Blue gene was discovered would we be making conclusions about the Blue mutation based only on the BlueTurquoise phenotype? You seem to relegate ParBlues into an 'almost a mutation' category. If there is a unique single mutant gene it always must be possible to have two of these genes in a creature. A df Turquoise is just as much a mutation as a Blue yet I am sure you wouldn't relegate Blue to the 'almost a mutation' category. They share a locus that is all, they are still recessive mutations in their own right.

I must admit I am still trying to get a df Indigo on the perch with a df Turquoise for an image. My df Indigo was killed by a hen the first week after I received it. The following re-posted images however show the differences between homo and hetero for Turquoise and Indigo. Ron has images of young df Indigos on his web site http://www.fabulousparrots.com.

'Sapphire' however, where is the df 'Sapphire'??? We only have Babu describing a ParblueBlue with less patching yet that seems to have been enough for some otherwise intelligent people to continually refer to it as a mutation in its own right.

IndigoBlue, df Indigo
Image

df Turquoise, TurquoiseBlue
Image
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Indigo blue & Blue next to each other

http://parakeet.me/irn/f/indigoNblue1.jpg

Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

trabots wrote:Johan, I thought I had long ago proved the uniqueness of the Turquoise and Indigo homozygotes. They are totally different. The heterozygotes I have shown to have much variation in phenotype and possibly even overlap, however it is ridiculous and unscientific to "draw the line" based on these ParblueBlues when the full expression of the Parblue is what the mutation is in fact.
Willy, you're test is very narrowly focused and have only shown a small part of the puzzle. You talk about science, so let us consider the bigger picture to explain the entire phenomenon. Have you tested by selective breeding? Have you repeatedly taken the greenest indigos into a line breeding program, and the bluest (least green) turquoise into a line breeding program and have you shown after a number of generations that the two phenotypes from the two line breeding programs do not look the same? :?: I'm sure you haven't. The problem here is, you are actually saying to the entire world that by selective breeding we will not be able to achieve a similar phenotype, but no one has scientifically shown this. Also consider what Madas has said not so long ago about the interaction between pallid and ino and the effect it has after multiple generations. You also severely underestimate the power in selective line breeding. Yet, this process has in fact been illustrated in a scientific manner to bring out certain desirable traits in an animal.

The point I'm trying to bring across is simply this: You are right in that they appear different and of course they are alleles, but it could simply be variation of a much more complex interaction of multiple genes. Then they aren't different mutations, but variation of the same. Can one line breed a cleartail to become a fallow? Of course not. I.e. they are unique mutations. Can one line breed a turquoise to become an indigo? Nobody knows for sure, but I'm not writing of the possibility. Why are you?
trabots wrote:You seem to relegate ParBlues into an 'almost a mutation' category. If there is a unique single mutant gene it always must be possible to have two of these genes in a creature. A df Turquoise is just as much a mutation as a Blue yet I am sure you wouldn't relegate Blue to the 'almost a mutation' category. They share a locus that is all, they are still recessive mutations in their own right.
No, my point was somehow lost. The parblues are a unique mutation and allele of blue. That is not in dispute. I'm questioning merely whether we are dealing with a single mutation with a very large variety that can be bred into a number of different lines (Deon calls them morphotypes, and I like that!), or whether they are truely unique and no amount of line breeding will bring the different morphotypes together.
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

sheyd wrote:
Johan S wrote:Where do we draw the line? Call them all new mutations when DF has shown them unique, or just bunch them together as turquoise as most people know them? :?:
I'd be inclined to choose the first option- if it is proven that there are indeed homozygous phenotypes (of preposed new mutations) then why label them all under one heading?

can anyone take pictures of the neck rings of; sfIndigo, dfIndigo, sfTurquiose & dfTurquoise Blues?
Because it has not been proven that they aren't simply variety of the same mutation (see my previous comment to Willy about line breeding). We all know that variety exist even in the wildtype. When does mere variety become enough to classify something as a new mutation?
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

Can one line breed a turquoise to become an indigo? Nobody knows for sure, but I'm not writing off the possibility. Why are you?
Firstly Johan, you use terminology which requires further explanation. I presume you mean't 'Can one line breed a TurquoiseBlue to become an IndigoBlue?' You no doubt can selectively and through line breeding, breed a lightly patched bluer TurquoiseBlue that looks identical to a greener heavily patched IndigoBlue. What happens if you pair two of these IndigoBlue look-a-likes? I will bet the farm that the homozygote you breed will be a df Turquoise NOT a df Indigo and vice versa. Look at the pics, they are totally different.To take your premise further this means that we can take an IndigoBlue and select etc and get a 'Sapphire'Blue and continue onward and finally get a BlueBlue (Blue)??

You say yourself that
The parblues are a unique mutation and allele of blue. That is not in dispute.
The definition of uniqueness precludes making a unique mutation out of another unique mutation. You are like so many others who cannot leave the ParblueBlues to their own similarities and discuss only the homozygous Parblues, the beast with the answers. You cannot make a df Indigo out of df Turquoise bird,
no amount of line breeding will bring the different morphotypes together.
and so
they are truely unique
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

Because it has not been proven that they aren't simply variety of the same mutation
I have proven it Johan. The homozygous Indigo is a different phenotype to a homozygous Turquoise. What do you require for proof? We accept that a CHCT is a different mutation to a CH Fallow because their homozygotes are different, what is the difficulty with accepting the same proof for mutations whose only crime is to share a locus with other mutations.
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

trabots wrote:
Because it has not been proven that they aren't simply variety of the same mutation
I have proven it Johan. The homozygous Indigo is a different phenotype to a homozygous Turquoise. What do you require for proof? We accept that a CHCT is a different mutation to a CH Fallow because their homozygotes are different, what is the difficulty with accepting the same proof for mutations whose only crime is to share a locus with other mutations.
The underlined above is a good question. And you have answered it already by stating the next phase of the experimental procedure. I have underlined it below.
trabots wrote:
Can one line breed a turquoise to become an indigo? Nobody knows for sure, but I'm not writing off the possibility. Why are you?
Firstly Johan, you use terminology which requires further explanation. I presume you mean't 'Can one line breed a TurquoiseBlue to become an IndigoBlue?' You no doubt can selectively and through line breeding, breed a lightly patched bluer TurquoiseBlue that looks identical to a greener heavily patched IndigoBlue. What happens if you pair two of these IndigoBlue look-a-likes? I will bet the farm that the homozygote you breed will be a df Turquoise NOT a df Indigo and vice versa. Look at the pics, they are totally different.To take your premise further this means that we can take an IndigoBlue and select etc and get a 'Sapphire'Blue and continue onward and finally get a BlueBlue (Blue)??
The question above in boldtype shows we do not understand parblues clearly yet. Thanks for highlighting it for us, Willy. My money on the result is different than yours. I believe that we will see something closer to the Indigo morphotype.

And to correct your terminology (in italics), there is no such thing as a df Turquoise or a df Indigo when you were the one to insist on calling a heterozygous parblue a TurquoiseBlue or IndigoBlue. The homozygous birds are Turquoise and Indigo without the DF. Annoying when people hammer the anvil and not the sword, hey? :P

This discussion has been very productive. What is very clear from the above is that we both agree that there are certain questions that have not been investigated and that we can clearly not answer yet. Your gut is telling you something different from my gut. We can not say with 100% certainty what those offspring will look like. It needs more investigation. Thanks again for highlighting to the rest of the forum what the next step should be in the investigation (your question above in boldface). Then we can revisit the unique mutation vs variety of a single mutation discussion.

PS: Please don't quote people out of context.
madas
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: white on white

Post by madas »

Hi Johan,

i can understand your point of view. But don't forget the color of the neckband. It's the most distinct pattern then comparing indigo and turquoise.
Even the homozygous indigo shows a white band for what we have seen on pics. But if i haven't read wrong Willy reported that one of his indigo showed
a little bit red in the neckband. So perhaps Johan thoughts tend to the right direction????? This bird should be used for a line breeding program.
Further more we need to solve the question if the indigo shows a little bit darker "Blue" then a normal blue or turquoise and makes it another marker for
a different mutation.

madas
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

You no doubt can selectively and through line breeding, breed a lightly patched bluer TurquoiseBlue that looks identical to a greener heavily patched IndigoBlue. What happens if you pair two of these IndigoBlue look-a-likes?
I re-quote myself. Just how many years do you reckon it would take to get to the point where you have df Indigo look-a-likes from line breeding df Turquoise look-a-likes? Firstly you have to breed the homozygotes to pair, got any? +2 years Then you have to start line breeding with how many pairs? How many generations do you reckon? 3? +6years Then you have to pair what you have after 8 years to breed what you claim will happen. +2 years. So 10+ years? As I am still a bit unsure about what you mean by "indigo" and "turquoise", the above argument still holds. Who is going to carry out this study? Unrealistic.
Annoying when people hammer the anvil and not the sword, hey?
Is this sarcasm? or is it Sarcasm?

So I am clear on Parblue naming terminology, I follow Terry Martin's rules except for one*:

heterozygous Turquoise with heterozygous Blue = TurquoiseBlue
heterozygous Turquoise with heterozygous Indigo = TurquoiseIndigo.
homozygous Turquoise = Turquoise = df Turquoise*

* I suggested a couple of years ago that because Turquoise and Blue are co-dominant, using lower case df Turquoise when you mean homozygous Turquoise would IMO avoid confusion whether one used 'turquoise' or TurquoiseBlue for the heterozygote. Hands up who uses the correct ParblueBlue terminology? Hands up who has a Parblue?
This discussion has been very productive. What is very clear from the above is that we both agree that there are certain questions that have not been investigated and that we can clearly not answer yet. Your gut is telling you something different from my gut. We can not say with 100% certainty what those offspring will look like. It needs more investigation. Thanks again for highlighting to the rest of the forum what the next step should be in the investigation (your question above in boldface).
These Parblues have been bred by the Budgerigar fanciers for how long? Have there been any reports of one Parblue mutation being line bred to end up with another Parblue mutation? Ever? My gut is not involved, that might be your problem.
Then we can revisit the unique mutation vs variety of a single mutation discussion.
You mean in 2023.
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

But don't forget the color of the neckband. It's the most distinct pattern then comparing indigo and turquoise.
Even the homozygous indigo shows a white band for what we have seen on pics. But if i haven't read wrong Willy reported that one of his indigo showed
a little bit red in the neckband.
Stefan, the norm for neck ring is white for IndigoBlue, shade of red for TurquoiseBlue and df Turquoise. My df Indigo had a shade of red neckband albeit much lighter than on a TurquoiseBlue. The breeder of this bird had bred a few and all had a small amount of red in the neck ring. Parblue involves adding a quantity of psitticins to a Blue bird or the prevention of Blue removing all psitticins. We seem to all agree the process is variable going either way. It is therefore not unreasonable for increased neck ring psitticin occurring variably in heavily marked Parblue and ParblueBlue birds reducing to pure white in most IndigoBlue and all Blue birds.
So perhaps Johan thoughts tend to the right direction?????
While some people are line-breeding df Turquoise into df Indigo birds I will be turning birdseed into birdshit and hopefully knowledge. A key point is this, the variability in these heterozygous birds, the ones we all have or have seen, the TurquoiseBlues and the IndigoBlues, vary not only because of variances in Turquoise and Indigo expression but also variances in Blue expression. We all know there are normal and brilliant Blue IRNs. When the Blue is eliminated as in a df Turquoise or df Indigo, then what? A major variability factor is no longer available. All pointless really, realistically speaking, time wise, to do this study. I much prefer their individual appearance, the heck with trying to turn one into another.
Carr.birds
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:13 pm
Location: Bloemfontein South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Carr.birds »

Stefan & Willy

This is a violet indigoblue/cleartail from an imported European line. Please compare this with Stefan's German violet indigoblue and tell me if you think this is the same phenotype.

Image

Regards

Tienie
madas
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: white on white

Post by madas »

Carr.birds wrote:Stefan & Willy

This is a violet indigoblue/cleartail from an imported European line. Please compare this with Stefan's German violet indigoblue and tell me if you think this is the same phenotype.

Regards

Tienie
Image

Image

Hm, i can't see any difference. But your pic is an outside pic and mine was taken inside at a bird exhibition.

Stefan
madas
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: white on white

Post by madas »

trabots wrote:We all know there are normal and brilliant Blue IRNs
Perhaps we have two blue mutations? Any one test breed a "normal" blue to a "brillinat" blue?

madas
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

IMO both Violet IndigoBlues
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

Johan said:
The underlined above is a good question. And you have answered it already by stating the next phase of the experimental procedure. I have underlined it below.

Johan quoted Willy:

Firstly Johan, you use terminology which requires further explanation. I presume you mean't 'Can one line breed a TurquoiseBlue to become an IndigoBlue?' You no doubt can selectively and through line breeding, breed a lightly patched bluer TurquoiseBlue that looks identical to a greener heavily patched IndigoBlue. What happens if you pair two of these IndigoBlue look-a-likes? I will bet the farm that the homozygote you breed will be a df Turquoise NOT a df Indigo and vice versa. Look at the pics, they are totally different.To take your premise further this means that we can take an IndigoBlue and select etc and get a 'Sapphire'Blue and continue onward and finally get a BlueBlue (Blue)??
and Johan said:
And to correct your terminology (in italics), there is no such thing as a df Turquoise or a df Indigo when you were the one to insist on calling a heterozygous parblue a TurquoiseBlue or IndigoBlue. The homozygous birds are Turquoise and Indigo without the DF. Annoying when people hammer the anvil and not the sword, hey?
Johan, if you go through these statements made by us both, you can see that your sarcasm regarding my terminology is unwarranted. You refer to "indigo" and "turquoise" in the first instance
Can one line breed a turquoise to become an indigo? Nobody knows for sure, but I'm not writing off the possibility. Why are you?
and one can infer from that you were referring to homozygous birds as you state with caps now included:
The homozygous birds are Turquoise and Indigo without the DF


You thank me on behalf of the forum for coming up with the experimental procedure underlined above however it is clear that I am referring to the heterozygous by using ParblueBlue terminology. Despite your lesson to me, you were in the first instance obviously referring to heterozygous birds NOT homozygous birds and using the same incorrect terminology that everyone uses for heterozygous Parblues, "turquoise" and "indigo". You have further established the need for my suggested 'df' for homozygous Parblues. Annoying when people try to hammer the sword and drop the hammer on their foot, hey?
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

Johan S wrote:Annoying when people hammer the anvil and not the sword, hey? :P
...
PS: Please don't quote people out of context.
Willy, notice the emoticon in my post? It is that little :P symbol. That changes the meaning of what I have said. The symbol :P means 1) sticking out tongue, 2) cheeky or 3) tongue in cheek. Notice that no malicious intend was meant. That is why one includes such a symbol on internet forums. The addition of the emoticon changes sarcasm into light hearted teasing. And you should see the joke in it. You are always insisting that we use the correct terminology. All of us makes the mistake of not doing it all the time. So it was funny when you made the mistake as well and I couldn't resist teasing you about it.

If you need help interpreting those smiley faces, this is a good place to start:
http://netforbeginners.about.com/cs/net ... ons101.htm

Hopefully I've clarified my intentions with the remark. I apologise if you misinterpreted the remark. I sincerely thought the emoticon would shed the necessary light. I hope we can now move on and get back to the line breeding discussion. :?:

PPS: I ask again, please do not quote people out of context. By, for example, removing the emoticon for my post, you are changing the meaning of my words. Quoting out of context is best left for reporters, not fellow forumites.
sheyd
Posts: 1293
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:22 pm

Re: white on white

Post by sheyd »

Ring0Neck wrote:Indigo blue & Blue next to each other

http://parakeet.me/irn/f/indigoNblue1.jpg

thankyou- I really was not expecting that much of a variance (if any)- you have certainly opened up my eyes...but* must* not* buy* more* birds*!!!
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

I hope we can now move on and get back to the line breeding discussion.
There you go Johan, I copied the face and it didn't get pasted. Not my fault, not interested in interpretation. You mean't what you said, the face is just a cover. IMO. I am consistent with my naming which nobody can confuse, whereas you have shown inconsistency in naming on this thread which I addressed. Please just read and most importantly comprehend my words as if they coming out of a machine, not an arrogant person. I regard an internet forum as impersonal. I make plenty of mistakes I know but I do correct them and usually before they are noticed, the last few days excepted.

Now the line breeding, which means Father to daughter and Mother to son over several generations, to fix a certain physical trait which you are interested in increasing (or decreasing). Line breeding does not alter the basic genetics. A df Turquoise is a different mutation to a df Indigo, just as a Pallid is to an Ino. You cannot line breed one to become the other. I did agree that you could probably line breed to get a TurquoiseBlue to be phenotypically the same as an IndigoBlue but that is it. I also pointed out the folly of such an exercise in this context. The two Parblues do everything expected of them from knowing their genetics. Why spend a decade trying to prove something that has yet to be seen in parrot genetics? The odds of success are poor. IMO.
Carr.birds
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:13 pm
Location: Bloemfontein South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Carr.birds »

Stefan & Willy

Stefan thanks for the compliment. My violet indigoblue/ct cock is 5 years old now and bred from his 2nd year. Paired to a dblue cleartail he produced dark & violet phenotype babies but when paired to a blue hen (last 2 years) not a single violet phenotype were present. A know it isn't big numbers <12 but it is a strange result. Will take a comparison picture with a American (violet blue & violet dark indigoblue) and post it later today.

Willy can you please post a pic of a deep dark indigoblue cock for comparison with the 2 cocks we compared.

Tienie
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

There are at least 6 pics of a Deep Dark IndigoBlue cock on Ron's website http://www.fabulousparrots.com. I don't have one yet however here is a comparison of a Violet IndigoBlue and Deep Violet TurquoiseBlue hens.

Image
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

Carr.birds wrote:Will take a comparison picture with a American (violet blue & violet dark indigoblue) and post it later today.
Hi Tienie, did you get a chance to take that pic? Also, when you compare this bird with the American violet, does it give you the impression that this bird has a slightly more vibrant and a bit more blue-ish purple to it?

And to everyone: what are your feelings toward variation as seen in both adm and dominant pieds? It is well known that homozygous birds can express highly variable phenotypes, ranging from poor pied, almost clear birds, birds with mostly clear flights, clear backs, etc. All a result from selective line breeding where one phenotype could be bred to another, and all from humble birds with only a few pied feathers in the case of recessive pied. The proof of a new mutation as suggested here was that homozygous birds should appear different. And it could be possible to breed one phenotype to appear like another, even though the exercise its probably pointless. Is this then not sufficient to classify these pieds as alleles and as new mutations. Like with parblues, I'm not very keen to go down this road. However, with this mindset I can certainly understand why people are starting to market birds as new mutations like clearflight, clearbody, etc. Thoughts?
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

Is this then not sufficient to classify these pieds as alleles and as new mutations.
Johan, you are a thinker, that is good. For a mutation to be an allele of another mutation, no matter how the phenotype is derived (line breeding or otherwise), it has to share a locus with the other mutation. The gene(s) for a phenotype, line bred from a Dominant Pied to look like an ADM pied will still be located at the particular locus for Dominant Pied. ADM Pied gene(s) can only be found at a different locus. As far as I am aware allelelic mutations must also inherit the same way.
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Like with parblues, I'm not very keen to go down this road. However, with this mindset I can certainly understand why people are starting to market birds as new mutations like clearflight, clearbody, etc. Thoughts?
I can see your point and reasonable one too and worthy of discussing further.
As far as parblues, even if the Indigo was just a Turquoise i would still want the indigo identified as Indigo
say i want to buy a bird, if advertised as Indigo it will describe the phenotype of the bird without seeing it, but if it was called just Turquoise i would not know what to expect, breeding results seem consistent & i think it warrants as a mutation in it's own right as Willy has done most ground work to prove it so.
I love the parblues and i have quiet a few homo. & hetero. however indigo is another phenotype altogether

I asked Recio in Parblues thread similar question regarding parblues if it's possible to breed turquoise to blues and eventually to get phenotype as an indigo, he said no and i tend to agree.
The way i see it is simple; we began with many homo. turquoise green looking birds and now most birds are hetero. turq. hence the bluer turquoises floating around and that gives us the impression the turquoise being bluer closer phenotype to Indigo. however it seems consistent with very small variations which we get with most mutations.
My opinion anyhow.
If we can think of any test breedings to further prove or disprove the theory and it does not take forever i'm up for it.

----------
clearflight, clearbody : most of us don't have these birds but if we did, surely we could not call them say Turquoise
perhaps they are a combo of some sort? Only if breeders that have them would come forward and explain the genetical makeup of these new "mutations" and breeding results etc.
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

trabots wrote:
Is this then not sufficient to classify these pieds as alleles and as new mutations.
Johan, you are a thinker, that is good. For a mutation to be an allele of another mutation, no matter how the phenotype is derived (line breeding or otherwise), it has to share a locus with the other mutation. The gene(s) for a phenotype, line bred from a Dominant Pied to look like an ADM pied will still be located at the particular locus for Dominant Pied. ADM Pied gene(s) can only be found at a different locus. As far as I am aware allelelic mutations must also inherit the same way.
Willy, my thoughts were not do combine recessive and dominant pied as a same mutation. My meaning was intended to present two more examples to the parblues discussion, i.e. we should treat both pied types separately. Even thought we get for example an adm pied phenotype with clear flights, and a dominant pied phenotype with clear flights, my meaning is not that they should be treated as alleles. Rather, the various adm pieds are alleles, and the various dominant pieds are alleles, but the adm pieds and dominant pieds are not alleles. Hope it is clearer now.

So the question then again, perhaps a little rephrased, if we consider dominant pieds only, can we look at homozygous birds and classify different phenotypes as different mutations of the same allele?
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

Ring0Neck wrote:
Like with parblues, I'm not very keen to go down this road. However, with this mindset I can certainly understand why people are starting to market birds as new mutations like clearflight, clearbody, etc. Thoughts?
I can see your point and reasonable one too and worthy of discussing further.
As far as parblues, even if the Indigo was just a Turquoise i would still want the indigo identified as Indigo
say i want to buy a bird, if advertised as Indigo it will describe the phenotype of the bird without seeing it, but if it was called just Turquoise i would not know what to expect, breeding results seem consistent & i think it warrants as a mutation in it's own right as Willy has done most ground work to prove it so.
I love the parblues and i have quiet a few homo. & hetero. however indigo is another phenotype altogether

I asked Recio in Parblues thread similar question regarding parblues if it's possible to breed turquoise to blues and eventually to get phenotype as an indigo, he said no and i tend to agree.
The way i see it is simple; we began with many homo. turquoise green looking birds and now most birds are hetero. turq. hence the bluer turquoises floating around and that gives us the impression the turquoise being bluer closer phenotype to Indigo. however it seems consistent with very small variations which we get with most mutations.
My opinion anyhow.
If we can think of any test breedings to further prove or disprove the theory and it does not take forever i'm up for it.

----------
clearflight, clearbody : most of us don't have these birds but if we did, surely we could not call them say Turquoise
perhaps they are a combo of some sort? Only if breeders that have them would come forward and explain the genetical makeup of these new "mutations" and breeding results etc.
Ben, I agree with most of what you are saying. I'm not against classifying indigo as a different phenotype of turquoise. I think this is exactly why Deon tries to introduce the term morphotype to complement the terms phenotype and genotype. My issue is more with semantics in that I think it is variation in parblues, and not a new mutation.

The reason why I raised the variation topic in terms of pied is because between my dad and I we own a number of homozygous adm pieds with different phenotypes. There are some with very little pied, there are some with clear flights, there are some that are lighter than a cinnamon and give almost completely clear offspring, there are symmetric pieds, there are "scrambled egg" types (I loved that one, Willy!), etc. As you say, it is nice to know what you are getting when you buy something, so when selling pieds I try and explain what they look like and send photos, but I honestly don't think that they are different mutations. And perhaps you can imagine why I get upset when somebody phones me about a new mutation they have, I get really excited and when I go and have the look they are sitting with a pied.
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Yep - agree - let's discuss these issues in greater detail and everyone should point out anything they can think of even if not sure, even "What if" it is good work for the brain and we might learn s-thing.
madas
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: white on white

Post by madas »

Ring0Neck wrote: I asked Recio in Parblues thread similar question regarding parblues if it's possible to breed turquoise to blues and eventually to get phenotype as an indigo, he said no and i tend to agree.
Here i can't agree. Remember in Peachfaced Lovebird there is no real blue mutation. But after some years of line breeding we can see completely blue looking birds breed from turquoise species.
And that's why i think we are able to breed indigos from pairing turquoise x blue. But it will take some years.

madas
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Madas, Point taken.
Can we ask around breeders that have bred indigo phenotype parblues and check parentage as far back as possible and perhaps we'll find a true turquoise somewhere down the line :?: .
working backwards can save years of work.
here in OZ i believe 90 odd % of turquoise birds have been paired to blue series birds, trend is probably same all over.


madas
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Contact:

Re: white on white

Post by madas »

madas wrote:
Ring0Neck wrote: I asked Recio in Parblues thread similar question regarding parblues if it's possible to breed turquoise to blues and eventually to get phenotype as an indigo, he said no and i tend to agree.
Here i can't agree. Remember in Peachfaced Lovebird there is no real blue mutation. But after some years of line breeding we can see completely blue looking birds breed from turquoise species.
And that's why i think we are able to breed indigos from pairing turquoise x blue. But it will take some years.

madas
And to quote my self. Perhaps there wasn't a true blue mutation in the IRN too. :D

madas
Johan S
Posts: 1215
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Re: white on white

Post by Johan S »

madas wrote:
Ring0Neck wrote: I asked Recio in Parblues thread similar question regarding parblues if it's possible to breed turquoise to blues and eventually to get phenotype as an indigo, he said no and i tend to agree.
Here i can't agree. Remember in Peachfaced Lovebird there is no real blue mutation. But after some years of line breeding we can see completely blue looking birds breed from turquoise species.
And that's why i think we are able to breed indigos from pairing turquoise x blue. But it will take some years.

madas
IIRC, in that same discussion it was also mentioned that we should consider the possibility that the blue locus consists of multiple genes, and depending on the number of genes that will activate psittacin production, we will get 10%, 20%, ..., 100% psittacin expression. If it is indeed multiple genes coding psittacin production, then the result that Madas mentions fits very well and we will eventually reduce psittacin production sufficiently to not be noticeable by our eyes. And if these genes are closely located and tightly linked (which seems to be the case), every new parblue morphotype would breed in a very stable manner in a line breeding program.

It is a pity that the parblue with the slight red in the neckring that Willy owned was sold. I'm very curious about the bird and it would be a good specimen to linebreed (some effort to work around the /ino, but do-able) and investigate the homozygous expression. Willy, any chance that you still know where the bird is or can track it?
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

IIRC, in that same discussion it was also mentioned that we should consider the possibility that the blue locus consists of multiple genes, and depending on the number of genes that will activate psittacin production, we will get 10%, 20%, ..., 100% psittacin expression. If it is indeed multiple genes coding psittacin production, then the result that Madas mentions fits very well and we will eventually reduce psittacin production sufficiently to not be noticeable by our eyes. And if these genes are closely located and tightly linked (which seems to be the case), every new parblue morphotype would breed in a very stable manner in a line breeding program.


If this was the case then it could also solve the Emerald patched dillema Willy has discovered.
I was just brainstorming, what if the hen (Willy's Deep Violet blue) is indigo with a minimum of psittacin, not visible to naked eye, then we would turn the tables upside down and ask if Deep is in any way linked to indigo with no visual psittacin? ...green feathers we sometimes see in Deep blues.
Hope i did not start a fire here :shock: these are just thoughts "What Ifs"
smick
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Australia

Re: white on white

Post by smick »

As someone who is somewhat new to mutation breeding as Willy says df indigo and df turquiose it is easy to understand then homo and hetero :roll: when pairing two like birds together and i bet there are probably plenty like me :) . As for the white flights a different species but years ago i bought a cock scarlet chested parrot from a local breeder that had pure white flights instead of black, he had maybe ten birds like this in both sexs in a large colony of scarlets. This cock when bred to a normal hen produced both white flighted and normal flighted young. I was told this wasn't a mutation and these birds when they moulted would lose the white flights. I had the cock for years and he retained the white flights, i allways just sold off the young so when he passed away i lost this type. Was this a mutation :?: o when young and nieeve. Thanks Smick.
ps i have both indigo blue and turquiose blue cocks and prefer to think they are both mutations in their own rights as they are clearly different.
Ring0Neck
Posts: 1714
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:24 am
Location: Brisbane QLD AUS

Re: white on white

Post by Ring0Neck »

Maybe we need to ask: Was Indigo bred from a turquoise?, probably 70% IMO yes.

If so, does it make it a less a mutation? when homo/heter. work had proven it a stable mutation and offspring phenotype is Indigo for all breeders?

Johan, let's talk about the ring.
the black/white ring of Indigo is just another way to identify Indigo, we can easily identify an Indigo hen or young male as Indigo without the aid of a neck ring, so perhaps we should ask: What about the ring? we don't pay any attention to red/pink/ yellow rings in other mutations, it is obvious that if it passes a threshold red will be displayed and that would apply to all mutations.
i have turquoise with yellow ring and related 1 with red. both turq. violets, beats me. one could be homo. and hetero. the other...
So for me black/white ring is indicative of Indigo only.
trabots
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: white on white

Post by trabots »

People, I can't participate until you quit looking just at the ParblueBlues and making all sorts of predictions 10,20,30%, 'turquoise to indigo' etc. Just why does one want to turn a 'turquoise' into an 'indigo'? Who is going to buy an 'indigo' bred from a 'turquoise' when the real thing is available cheaply.

All these birds are half Blue, if they df they have no Blue genes, the df Parblue is the real thing. Why do they look so different, df Turquoise and df Indigo or for that matter 'df Blue' and hopefully df Emerald? Yes you can line breed and alter the psitticin blocking/production one way or another in ParblueBlues, but how have you changed what happens when there is no Blue? Why don't you ask yourselves that? Will the homozygote be altered after years of line breeding? The df Indigo will still be a different phenotype to the df Turquoise bred from 2 'indigo' lookalike TurquoiseBlue birds.

Further, if as someone said there is Turquoise behind the Indigos, why do we have far more of the standard phenotype for the Indigos than heavier/lighter patched ones? Surely there should have been a gradual gradiation in phenotypes established long ago? The part way birds would not have been all culled. The other way around, the many many Turquoise birds I have are very similar with maybe 1 in 10 not significantly non-standard.

When most of you are talking about ParblueBlues you write 'parblue'. TurquoiseBlue = turquoise etc seems to be the language on this forum so from now on I will also use the single name without the 'Blue', and 'df' when there actually is no Blue in the bird. I will also in the first instance assume heterozygous unless I see homozygous or 'df'. I may be mistaken but I saw a few 'df Parblues' in Deon's book. I am also going to drop the Blue behind Violet etc. If you mean Violet Green you already use it.

In the Emerald thread you can see that from Emerald x Deep Violet I have managed to breed all 3 Parblues; Emeralds for sure (they flouresce), Turquoise and Indigo look-a-likes and the Turquoise birds look df. Observations only. I look forward to the chat.
Post Reply