Case Closed: Emerald = Parblue Mutation

[Recio]

Hi Recio,

Whoever has a df Emerald i highly doubt will do this pairing. We're talking price of a car here to prove something IMO has been proven from other species to this season's split emerald and Mike's results.

Breeders are mad people ready to spend money to get a unique mutation but also to prove/disprove theories ... so I am quite confident. Emerald seems to be unique to IRN and his very close cusin Alex, so it does not exist in other species. I would not take any conclusions before analysing the phenotype of the non blue split Emerald (specially when other mutations are included in its genetic make up) and, since we all know that parblues blend in Emerald birds, Mike's results must be revisited (what if the parent was an Emerald df Turquoise? ... you would only get 2 possible phenotypes like he has gotten)

Could you please run through & let's develop by pretending we've done the pairing
df or DF Emerald X Wildtype

We can assume we're going to have either of the 2 results
1. green/emerald
or
2. 100% emerald green birds
Could you develop what that proves for either case?

You have already done it : if Emerald is parblue then 100% offspring phenotype will be wild Green. If Emerald is an incomplete dominant mutation, then 100% Offspring will be Green Emerald.

Neither result will prove anything re your reasoning: "SL-ino and Cinnamon combos".
so not exactly Golden.

?

It'd be pointelss waiting 5-7 years till this is done only to come up with another reason why it's not sufficient.

It would be great to get another reason to say that it is not sufficient. It would mean that we have learnt a lot more about our bird's genetics, and, to me, learning is the real goal of these discusions.

Regards

Recio

[Ring0Neck]

Hi Recio,

... Emerald seems to be unique to IRN and his very close cusin Alex, so it does not exist in other species. I would not take any conclusions before analysing the phenotype of the non blue split Emerald (specially when other mutations are included in its genetic make up) and, since we all know that parblues blend in Emerald birds, Mike's results must be revisited (what if the parent was an Emerald df Turquoise? ... you would only get 2 possible phenotypes like he has gotten)

Emerald considered unique; if proven a parblue, would that statement still be valid? or then we can classify it as Aqua?
Blending in with Parblues, I thought parblues do that amongst themselves. must be allelic at least? how do we explain that?

I will do my best to get the pic of the non blue split Emerald

Mike, could you ask the breeder you acquired your Emerald Turquoise bird from if the parents of the parent Turquoise were both Turquoise? or if there were also blues bred from the pair you got your bird from.

PS: I have seen many CT pairings but yet to see one with both parblues (emerald excluded), sure there is but rare it must be said.

As it stands for the Emerald not to be Parblue we would need Mike's bird to be df Turquoise Emerald & the green non blue split emerald to be emerald green/bue and both breeders to have missed it.
A mountain to climb but at least we have some valid points.
Ben

[trabots]

And some more "blue series" emerald alexandrines:

Stefan, how can they be Blue birds when they have obvious psitticins? These certainly look more like our EmeraldBlue IRNs.

[trabots]

if Lutino removes every melanin ... how could a SL-ino Cinnamon show any melanin? Thus lutino and cinnamon must be alleles of the same gene and not different mutations. .... so things are not that easy.

Recio you have added another mutation and therefore due to x-over or whatever the relationship, you are talking about a male bird with only 1 Ino gene are you not? Plain homozygous Inos have a small amount of remnant structure only and nil melanin. Blue birds have no psitticins. That is the easy part.

if blue deposits exist in dark green and violet green series why are these not 'parblue'?

These are wildtype areas of more structure than psitticins, seen clearly on a wildtype.

The golden prove will be pairing a DF Emerald (either green or Blue series) to a wild IRN no split for Blue or Parblue. Till that time we are enjoying this amazing game of reasoning and deduction.

And until then Recio, the breeding outcomes remain the same do they not? They are after all dominant in 99% of breedings. I am a logic guy and I know that there is not a single homozygous Blue parrot with psitticin going to be presented here, rather than the obvious logic that if it has psitticins it cannot be Blue? The test for a Blue bird is easy. Pair an EmeraldBlue hen with an Albino cock. If you don't breed 100% white hens it isn't Blue. You will get some lovely EmeraldBlue Ino hens.

But how can we be sure this is in fact caused by a pigment, when a structural mutation could lead to the same effect???

Molossus that is just the physics of optical effects in feathers. The feather 'prisms' can only show the blue end of the spectrum. The sky is blue as a result of a similar process. Violet and Cobalt and Deep and Grey all alter the structure but well into the blue end of the spectrum, Violet being the shortest wave length (so far) and Grey destroying all (arguably most) structure.

here is a blue series emerald in alexandrine. Obviously VERY different from the green series birds posted by Lee. And just as obvious not a normal blue alexandrine.

This bird is a Parblue. It has psitticins. I say it as I see it. No animosity honest.

Mike's results must be revisited (what if the parent was an Emerald df Turquoise?

Why do we automatically question the authenticity of the bred birds? I usually do but in this case the bird was bred by John Friske who is to be trusted. Aaron bred from a Green /Emerald, an EmeraldBlue. That is the proof and backed up by Mike's results. Let's work out why I have 'patched emeralds instead.

[madas]

And some more "blue series" emerald alexandrines:

Stefan, how can they be Blue birds when they have obvious psitticins? These certainly look more like our EmeraldBlue IRNs.

Hi Willy,

i haven't written blue birds. I wrote "blue series" birds which should read as "birds with blue base color".
Sorry for confusion.

[trabots]

i haven't written blue birds. I wrote "blue series" birds which should read as "birds with blue base color".
Sorry for confusion.

But Stefan that is the point, if a bird is a Blue series it has two Blue genes at the Blue locus and that bird has nil psitticins. A bird with only one Blue gene is either a split Blue with a wildtype gene on the same locus as well, or it is a ParblueBlue with one of the ParBlue genes sharing the locus with a Blue gene. There is no other option except of course a wildtype. The locus is named the Blue locus however every allele that can be on that locus has equal dominance with every other gene that is possible at that locus. A bird could just as easily be one with a 'Turquoise base colour' but those are just words.

[madas]

i haven't written blue birds. I wrote "blue series" birds which should read as "birds with blue base color".
Sorry for confusion.

But Stefan that is the point, if a bird is a Blue series it has two Blue genes at the Blue locus and that bird has nil psitticins. A bird with only one Blue gene is either a split Blue with a wildtype gene on the same locus as well, or it is a ParblueBlue with one of the ParBlue genes sharing the locus with a Blue gene. There is no other option except of course a wildtype. The locus is named the Blue locus however every allele that can be on that locus has equal dominance with every other gene that is possible at that locus. A bird could just as easily be one with a 'Turquoise base colour' but those are just words.

Yeah i know what you mean and i a scientific view your are right at all.

But for me (not a scientist in birds and most others ) and not only in IRNs (introduced by Budgies) blue looking birds = blue series birds and green looking birds = green series birds.

The locus is named the Blue locus however every allele that can be on that locus has equal dominance with every other gene that is possible at that locus.

This isn't completly right. ;) The unmated allele of the blue locus is allways domiant over all other alleles of the same locus otherwise we haven't got green /blue birds.

Cheers.

[Recio]

Hi Willy and Madas;

You are both rigth. The only problem is what is understood by dominance. We should always say which allele is dominant over which. Dominance or recesivity is the way alleles behave one respective to another; it is the behaviour and not the gene itself what is called dominant or recessive. Ex: Any parblue behaves dominant respective to Blue, but any Parblue behaves recessive respective to the wild gene, and , even better, Parblues behave as codominant respective to other parblues.
As you can see the same allele (Parblue) can behave dominant, recessive or codominant.
Regards

Recio

[trabots]

Parblues behave as codominant respective to other parblues.

Recio, that should read Parblues behave as co-dominant to other Parblues AND Blue and vice versa.

[trabots]

The locus is named the Blue locus however every allele that can be on that locus has equal dominance with every other gene that is possible at that locus.

Stefan it should read mutant allele

[trabots]

The locus is named the Blue locus however every allele that can be on that locus has equal dominance with every other gene that is possible at that locus.

Stefan it should read mutant allele

and mutant gene

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Ben and Willy
I am still entirely accepting of the fact that 2 blue genes at the blue locus eliminate yellow pigment but I have been thinking again.

In the case of Ben's pairing of a Green Cleartail split emerald cock to a Violet Blue split cleartail hen surely, if the cock bird was split turquoise, you would be able to produce a Violet SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue split cleartail chick which could arguably display the same phenotype as the actual Violet EmeraldBlue split cleartail chick that was actually produced.

The potential outcomes from my EmeraldTurquoise hen paired to a BlueBlue (excuse my perversion of the Martin system) cock are EmeraldBlue and TurquoiseBlue as I think we all understand.

On the other hand, if she was in fact a SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue paired to the same BlueBlue cock the potential outcomes would be SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue (which would presumably be phenetically similar to an EmeraldTurquoise), SF Emerald BlueBlue (which would be phenetically blue because blue is a null mutation), TurquoiseBlue and BlueBlue.

There would seem to be no possibility of EmeraldBlue chicks being produced if she was a SF Emerald however, but she did in fact produce 5 of them. So, is there another potential mutation combination that could give rise to a phenetically EmeraldTurquoise hen that we should be considering?

Kind regards
Mike

[trabots]

Hi Mike,

I am sold on Aaron's breeding of a Green bird to a non-Emerald bird and resulting in an EmeraldBlue chick. He was told by a respected breeder that the Green bird was poss split Emerald. That breeder is obviously way ahead of the rest of us and also knows that Emerald is a recessive Parblue mutation. All the rest has been what ifs? Are you not confident of the birds from which you bred EmeraldBlues and TurquoiseBlues only? Aaron's breeding, Babu's story of the first wild df Emerald breeding 100% EmeraldBlues, my stupidly overlooked fact that our Emeralds cannot be Blues because Blue eliminates 100% of psitticins, and your breeding is just the bonus clincher, that is unless you are unsure about your breeders. Personally, I do not need any more proofs that Emerald is Parblue.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Willy

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make.

If I take your insight into account, that 2 blue genes eliminate all yellow pigment, and rework my breeding results with that in mind, I get a surprising revised result. That result is that my pairing can only produce EmeraldBlue chicks if emerald is a par blue gene (see my previous post).

Incidentally, I have always assumed that emerald was a par blue gene and I get more convinced of that conviction as the debate goes on. However, my breeding results, as revised in my previous post, can surely only serve as an absolute proof if nobody can come up with revised genotypes that fit the facts.

Kind regards
Mike

[Recio]

On the other hand, if she was in fact a SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue paired to the same BlueBlue cock the potential outcomes would be SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue (which would presumably be phenetically similar to an EmeraldTurquoise), SF Emerald BlueBlue (which would be phenetically blue because blue is a null mutation), TurquoiseBlue and BlueBlue. Mike

Hi Mike,

You are not considering Emerald as a mutation acting on feather structure producing a structural yellow but as a mutation acting on psittacins. When your depart point of thinking is that Emerald is a Parblue your final conclusions will be that Emerald is a Parblue. If you consider it as a structural mutation, you will be able to understand the different hormonal and age dependent regulation, the different anatomic and feather distribution, the different fluorescence and iridescence, .... In this hypothesis the SF Emerald BlueBlue would be phenotypically emerald and not Blue.

I will try later to develop Parblue Emerald interactions.

Best regards

Recio

[trabots]

The potential outcomes from my EmeraldTurquoise hen paired to a BlueBlue (excuse my perversion of the Martin system) cock are EmeraldBlue and TurquoiseBlue

my pairing can only produce EmeraldBlue chicks if emerald is a par blue gene

Mike you were right the first time.

EmeraldTurquoise x BlueBlue =

50% EmeraldBlue
50% TurquoiseBlue

You see all the young get a Blue gene but they get either of the Parblue genes but not both, only 2 seats on the bus and half are taken by Blue genes. I like your using the BlueBlue, it demonstrates the situation on the locus. No room to do EmeraldTurquoiseBlue or BlueBlueIndigo...

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Recio

You are quite correct in saying I was looking at emerald as a pigment producing gene rather than as a structural gene, I took that position because all the other structural genes act on the cloudy layer and yellow comes from the cortex. Its a bit like my missing the insight raised by Willy re two blue genes eliminating yellow pigment. Like him, you are of course correct and I stand corrected.

Does the concept of emerald possibly being a structural gene necessarily mean it will be co-dominant and should we therefore be able to see some evidence of it in the green series? Would it also mean that a different yellow hue or tone might be produced by it compared to that seen with turquoise?

I asked the latter question because my emeralds are cleartails so they have a fair extent of yellow and their yellow looks like a different sort of yellow to that I get with turquoise. You can see what I mean to a slight extent in the attached photo. However, I don't think it will become much clearer until one or more of my Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartails develop a bit more yellow pigment, which they should do with time.

I can take some comparative (side by side) photos if you think it will help. The Violet TurquoiseBlue in the library photo really only has yellow pigment on the forehead so far, in this regard I can send you a high resolution photo direct if you wish.

Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Recio
Old age is a marvelous thing, it now occurs to me that I actually have a one year old Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartail cock bird that is heavily endowed with yellow pigment. I could photograph him next to my one and only young Violet EmeraldBlue Cleartail if you think that will shed any more light on the debate.
Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Recio
Its me again I'm afraid, with some questions.

Do all structural mutations necessarily achieve their effect through an impact on the cloudy layer?
I can see how Dark and Violet combine by one making it narrower and the other altering its content. How might Emerald and Violet combine? Would it be by both effecting the internal structure of the cloudy layer or could emerald achieve its structural effect in the cortex?

I'm asking, because I expected a Dark Emerald Cleartail to be a darker version of an Emerald Cleartail and it was. However, I expected a Violet Emerald Cleartail to be a greenish sort of colour like the green patches on a young Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartail but it isn't like that at all. It looks more like a dark sort of violet, apparently seeming to have more in common with a DF Violet than with the green patching on a TurquoiseBlue Violet.

Kind regards
Mike

[trabots]

Does the concept of emerald possibly being a structural gene necessarily mean it will be co-dominant and should we therefore be able to see some evidence of it in the green series?

Mike, if a simple het. Emerald is not EmeraldBlue it is Green /Emerald (what Aaron has). A Green series bird has the Blue locus as GreenGreen or GreenBlue, GreenParblue, etc. Splits to the Blue locus. The locus can be GreenEmerald which is what Aaron has bred an EmeraldBlue from.

The action taken by a gene, as in structural or melanistic etc is independent of the inheritance mode.

If anyone has pics of a straight Green CHCT you can compare the yellow areas to any other ParblueBlue CHCT. In Mike's pics the EmeraldBlue CHCT has more psitticin than the TurquoiseBlue CHCT, IndigoBllue CHCT will have even less. Ino versions will do the same comparison.

Mike how about pics of the TurquoiseEmerald parent? The relative amount of psitticin will answer our question re: compounding psitticin in heteroalleles.

IMO the only structural part of an EmeraldBlue is the Blue contribution. A df Emerald is what you need to look at to see if it is structural or not.

[Johan S]

Does the concept of emerald possibly being a structural gene necessarily mean it will be co-dominant and should we therefore be able to see some evidence of it in the green series? Would it also mean that a different yellow hue or tone might be produced by it compared to that seen with turquoise?

Mike, you are clearly a thinker and adapt very quickly to different points of view! Let me put it to you in the reverse. Initially, there was emerald. And the thinking very quickly that it is a parblue. Only many many years later were a question asked. And that question: IF emerald is a parblue, we shouldn't see it in the green series. It is recessive. Yet, why do we see small traces of emerald and a phenotypic change in the heterozygous green alexandrines? So to answer your first question, the answer is yes. It's not a massive change from the wildtype, but neither is misty for example. But once you know what to look for, you can pick them out from the wildtype alexandrine. The answer to your second question is best seen in turquoiseblue harlequins compared to emerald blue (or emeraldblue) harlequins. Two very distinct yellows coming through on those birds. The only thing to add as well, is that we see a difference in colour in a UV study as well.

Your first question is exactly why we are exploring the mere possibility of emerald being a structural mutation and possibly not a parblue.

As Willy always reminds us, if the blue mutation removes all psittacins, the hetero allelic emeraldblue showing psittacin should be a parblue. That reasoning is sound, until we ask the first question you have, but knowing the answer, I'll rephrase just slightly: If emerald is a parblue, why is it visible in the green series heterozygous emerald alexandrine, i.e. the green / emerald (or emerald green split or not split blue)? Obviously, that is not how a recessive mutation acts. It shouldn't be visible. Period. And we can argue dominance all we want, any parblue is recessive to green by definition, in the same way any blue removes all (naturally occurring) psittacin by definition. Clearly, a contradiction arising from our definitions have arisen, and with it some questions to explore.

The members of this forum have asked for a long time for the pictures of a heterozygous emerald ringneck in green. Now that we now for a fact that such a bird exists with an Oz breeder, another piece of the puzzle should be forthcoming soon. A picture showing phenotypic similarity/difference of a green and heterozygous emerald green in the same conditions could reveal a lot. And as always, we patiently wait.

[Recio]

Does the concept of emerald possibly being a structural gene necessarily mean it will be co-dominant and should we therefore be able to see some evidence of it in the green series? Would it also mean that a different yellow hue or tone might be produced by it compared to that seen with turquoise?

Yes Mike. The hue of structural colours seem to change depending on the ligth angle and type of ligth. Everybody in this forum knows that pics of Emerald birds can show a color ranging from green to blue depending on these factors. So if we are dealing with a structural yellow in Emeralds the apparent hue should be different than the yellow color produced by psittacins. Besides the hue, another important component of the color is brightness or iridescence, which depends on a regular disposition of nanostructures on the cortex outer surface. Emeralds show this kind of iridescence, thus the idea that it could be a structural mutation acting on the cortex. Probably Misty and Emerald belong to the same group of mutations since they both show this special iridescence.

I asked the latter question because my emeralds are cleartails so they have a fair extent of yellow and their yellow looks like a different sort of yellow to that I get with turquoise. You can see what I mean to a slight extent in the attached photo. However, I don't think it will become much clearer until one or more of my Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartails develop a bit more yellow pigment, which they should do with time.

I can take some comparative (side by side) photos if you think it will help. The Violet TurquoiseBlue in the library photo really only has yellow pigment on the forehead so far, in this regard I can send you a high resolution photo direct if you wish.

This different yellow adds consistency to Emerald as a different type of yellow (structural?) than the yellow from psittacins.... but, as I said before, those differences are hard to see on the pics due to the changing hue of structural colours. Direct observation is probably better than a pic.

Best regards Mike

Recio

[Recio]

Hi Recio
Its me again I'm afraid, with some questions.

Do all structural mutations necessarily achieve their effect through an impact on the cloudy layer?
I can see how Dark and Violet combine by one making it narrower and the other altering its content. How might Emerald and Violet combine? Would it be by both effecting the internal structure of the cloudy layer or could emerald achieve its structural effect in the cortex?

I'm asking, because I expected a Dark Emerald Cleartail to be a darker version of an Emerald Cleartail and it was. However, I expected a Violet Emerald Cleartail to be a greenish sort of colour like the green patches on a young Violet TurquoiseBlue Cleartail but it isn't like that at all. It looks more like a dark sort of violet, apparently seeming to have more in common with a DF Violet than with the green patching on a TurquoiseBlue Violet.

Kind regards
Mike

Hi again Mike,

You are adding more and more evidences to Emerald as a structural mutation of the outer cotex. It has been discussed previously in this forum by Johan and me that Violet is probably a mutation of the keratin acting on both the spongy zone (without apparent change in spongy zone width as for Dark or Grey, but at the ultrastructural level) and the outer cortex. The change in the outer cortex could explain the brigthness of Violet birds, and this brigthness could be correlated to the presence of a structural yellow even in Violets (do not forget Deon's pic of Violinos showing a yellowish to bluish color). Your observations of Emerald combined with Violet not producing green but "DF Violet like" colours adds consistency to Emerald as a structural mutation. If Emerald was a change in psittacins content the Violet Emerald should have been a greener bird and not a "darker" violet.

Regards

Recio

[Recio]

Let's go further,

I am going to analyse the genotypes of known heteroalleles and homoalleles of the blue locus. I will try to give psittacin values close to reality.

Possible alleles combinations and yellow psittacin expressed:
BlueBlue ................... 0
BlueIndigo ................ 15
IndigoIndigo ............. 30
BlueTurquoise ........... 40
IndigoTurquoise ........ 55
TurquoiseTurquoise ... 80
WildBlue .................. 100
WildIndigo ............... 100-115
WildTurquoise .......... 100-140
WildWild .................. 100-200

We can not detect values of psittacin production higher than 100. It can be because our perception system is saturated but it can also be because the metabolic system leading to psittacin synthesis is also saturated and not more psittacin is produced. Anyway one single wild allele is enough to produce a quantity of psittacin able to produce the colour perception we have when looking at the wild bird .... and so every combination of the wild allele with another allele is said to be a wild bird split for that allele.

In this system the red psittacins are likely to appear from 30 units of yellow psittacin on since the IndigoIndigo show a ligth red yellow.

If Emerald was a parblue the combination TurquoiseEmerald must show a very marked red ring since the combination of Turquoise and Blue (null muttaion) shows already a red ring. Has anybody ever seen a pic of a phenotypic Emerald with a red ring? If the answer is : NON, there are only phenotypic Indigos (heterozygous Indigos not showing any red psittacin), in this case we should conclude that Emerald is not a parblue mutation.

The red ring is a better marker than the yellow psittacins. Yellow psittacins and structural yellow blend and, thus, we should not look at them when analysing Emerald Parblue interactions.

Regards

Recio

[Recio]

Hi again,

Something else: somebody (I think Gratz or Johan, but not sure) has recently written that maybe Green could mask Emerald. This idea has been coming back to my mind again and again, .... and I think that I know how we can use it. Our problem is that our reference bird is the wild green bird. All our terminology and way of thinking and speaking are related to the wild bird. Ex: we speak of split birds respective to the wild gene.... but nobody speaks of split bird respective to a mutated gene, and similarly we accept the idea of masking between two mutations but not respective to the wild status. Why this? We should not have any reference bird but look at our birds as a mix of diferente genes and alleles. Imagine that you do not know which is the wild bird and that you have a flock of different birds. In this situation nobody would question the possibility of the Green bird (yellow psittacin + structural blue) being able to mask another Green bird produced by structural yellow + structural blue.

Regards

Recio

[trabots]

If emerald is a parblue, why is it visible in the green series heterozygous emerald alexandrine, i.e. the green / emerald (or emerald green split or not split blue)?

Johan, Molossus et al, we are talking about the Emerald mutation in IRNs NOT Alexandrines. That is a totally different beast and must be studied on its own. In due course I am confident it will prove up as a different mutation to that found in IRNs. It has already been shown that heterozygous 'Emerald' Green Alexandrines can be detected visually. Logic says that as it is not visible in IRNs it must be a different mutation. This comparison to the Alex to try and justify dominance in IRN Emeralds is illogical and confuses the issue. We are in an IRN forum.

[Ring0Neck]

Hi Recio,

maybe Green could mask Emerald

Mutations that are not visible in green are certainly not Dominant & it can only be a Recessive to Wildtype.
A logical conclusion no speculations required.
Wildtype does not hide dom. mutations
This is the model that all mutations use, if grey, violet, dark, etc are all visible in green how would the emerald that no other mutation is able to hide/mask (ino or grey) would not be visible in green if it was not a Rec?

If i'd call you up and say; Recio I have a new mutation, visual in all colors/mutations but green, i know what you're going to say and you won't even need to see that bird/mutation to know for a fact based on above info. because logic prevails.

non visual GreenNewMutation = Green/New Mutation

I don't want to burst the inspiration & creativity i'm all for it more then most, but if we can not accept facts, we can not progress
as Willy said we should concentrate on his patched emeralds
Patched emeralds - whatever the reason it should give us some clues the patches IMO pointing to Parblue

[trabots]

Please have a look at this article on structural colour in birds. This quote is the clincher:

These fundamental modifications cause violet and blue light to be selectively reflected from the feather surface in the case of violet/blue feathers, while white feathers reflect all visible light. In short, violets, blues and whites are structural colors, or schemochromes.

No mention in any article I could find of structural colours in feathers other than those at the blue end of the spectrum.

[trabots]

Sorry, this is the article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/punc ... ds-physics

[trabots]

It seems that it is almost pathological with some of you to prove IRN Emerald is dominant and not Parblue. Have you bet your houses on it? Every single such argument or theory put forward could just as easily been used to dispute Turquoise or Indigo. Why are they not being questioned? I have yet to hear of or see a Green /Indigo. Indigo is just as unknown as Emerald, probably more so is it not? Let's question Indigo as well if we are to be consistent. If you like, we can add 'Sapphire' too.

Again, the hetero. Emerald IRN we know and I have bred has come from pairings with Blue. That said we know that they must have at least one Blue gene. The hetero. Emerald IRN has psitticin so it cannot have 2 Blue genes. The bird then is Emerald /Blue or is EmeraldBlue. If the former then we already have a Green series Emerald as any bird with BlueWildtype at the Blue locus is Green series split Blue. So where are all the Emerald Blue birds? All the hetero. Emerald IRNs have at least one Blue gene and if Emerald is dominant it is highly unlikely that a homo. Blue Emerald has never been bred. Recio, anyone, please dissect this sentence by sentence and come up with another logical explanation, no diverging into yellow structure and the like, just tell me where this logic fails and at which sentence. This is not scientific to keep ignoring facts, especially when the facts have been backed up by breedings and fit perfectly the story of the first Emerald obtained from the wild.

SF Emerald /Blue x Blue =

25% Green /Blue
25% SF Emerald /Blue
25% Blue
25% SF Emerald Blue where are these birds???

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Recio,

... Emerald seems to be unique to IRN and his very close cusin Alex, so it does not exist in other species. I would not take any conclusions before analysing the phenotype of the non blue split Emerald (specially when other mutations are included in its genetic make up) and, since we all know that parblues blend in Emerald birds, Mike's results must be revisited (what if the parent was an Emerald df Turquoise? ... you would only get 2 possible phenotypes like he has gotten)

Emerald considered unique; if proven a parblue, would that statement still be valid? or then we can classify it as Aqua?
Blending in with Parblues, I thought parblues do that amongst themselves. must be allelic at least? how do we explain that?

I will do my best to get the pic of the non blue split Emerald

Mike, could you ask the breeder you acquired your Emerald Turquoise bird from if the parents of the parent Turquoise were both Turquoise? or if there were also blues bred from the pair you got your bird from.

PS: I have seen many CT pairings but yet to see one with both parblues (emerald excluded), sure there is but rare it must be said.

As it stands for the Emerald not to be Parblue we would need Mike's bird to be df Turquoise Emerald & the green non blue split emerald to be emerald green/bue and both breeders to have missed it.
A mountain to climb but at least we have some valid points.
Ben

Hi Ben
The source of my EmeraldTurquoise hen was Raelene Dellios in Melbourne, who I believe to be a very reputable breeder. The parents were a TurquoiseBlue split cleartail cock and a Grey EmeraldBlue Cleartail hen. I will ask her about the grand parents on the mother's side to see if there is any chance of my hen being a TurquoiseTurquoise (I certainly couldn't tell from the phenotype)
Kind regards
Mike

[trabots]

I will ask her about the grand parents on the mother's side to see if there is any chance of my hen being a TurquoiseTurquoise (I certainly couldn't tell from the phenotype)

Hi Mike here is a TurquoiseTurquoise next to a TurquoiseBlue

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Willy
Its Sunday and raining so I will have another go at explaining why I think Ben's pairing doesn't constitute 100% proof that emerald is a par blue gene.

Father GreenGreen; cleartailcleartail; emeraldGreen
Mother VioletGreen; cleartailGreen; blueblue
Chick VioletGreen; cleartailGreen; emeraldblue phenotype Violet EmeraldBlue so far no problem with proof.

However, if we assume that emerald is a structural gene as proposed by Recio the equation looks a bit different as below.

Father GreenGreen; cleartailcleartail; EmeraldGreen; GreenGreen
Mother VioletGreen; cleartailGreen; GreenGreen; blueblue
Chick VioletGreen; cleartailGreen EmeraldGreen; blueGreen phenotype VioletGreen Emerald (which is not what it is)

The foregoing proves that emerald is a par blue gene only if you assume that the father is not split for blue. If you add a blue gene to the father's makeup (directly above) you immediately get a potentially correct phenotype for the chick IE Violet Blue Emerald.

The assumption that the father is not split for blue is the natural one to make if you assume to start with that emerald is a par blue gene, because the father would be phenetically an EmeraldBlue bird not a Green bird in that circumstance. I must say, that I would have made that assumption and I would assume that John Friske would have done the same, as I suspect would both you and Ben.(I am not here trying to imply anything negative at all about John Friske, he is in my view a very experienced and widely respected breeder).

All the foregoing having been said, if the father is split for blue, and emerald is a structural mutation, then the chick's phenotype could be Violet Blue Emerald which I submit could well look the same as what we have all assumed is Violet EmeraldBlue.

Kind regards
Mike

[trabots]

Hi Mike, firstly your pairs are not correct, this is what happened. They are not Ben's birds, Ben just saw the birds at Aaron's. I talked to Aaron today for 30 min.

The pairing was Violet Blue CHCT x Violet Green /CHCT /Emerald, removing the irrelevant we have:

Blue x Green /Emerald =

50% Green /Blue
50% EmeraldBlue

Now before anyone says the hen could have been visual Emerald if it had not been Violet, it was a perfectly normal Violet Green bird and sold to him by John Friske who told him it had an Emerald parent and so might be split Emerald. It was. I know this leaves room for all sorts of new what ifs but if Emerald was visible in Green it would also be visible in Violet Green. You have bet your house also and I thought that along with Ben you had seen the light.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Willy
I understand that you are dealing with the facts third hand which is difficult, but when this thread started we were told that the parental pairing was Green CT/emerald X violet blue/CT to be exact.Now you tell me that is wrong and that the correct data is Violet Blue CHCT X Violet Green/CHCT/emerald. Fortunately, when you simplify, both come down to the same thing, namely Green split Emerald X Blue, so my analysis should not be affected.

I only go through such an analytical process so that those of you more skilled than me with avian genetics can tell me where my reasoning is wrong. It takes a bit of time so I'll stop doing it.

Like you, I believe that emerald is in fact a par blue gene. Where we differ is that I am pretty sure we don't yet have breeding result proof. My results point in the right direction. However, my pairing can only prove absolutely that emerald is not a par blue gene by producing a Blue or an EmeraldBlue chick. I don't believe they ever will, but I can't prove it.

Aaron's breeding result only provides an absolute proof if we can be 100% certain that the Green parent is not split for blue as detailed in my previous analysis. Why not ask John Friske what its parents were. Frankly, I'd be surprised if a very knowledgeable and experienced breeder like him would have produced an emerald split without a blue gene in the parental pair. I would also not have expected him to advise a purchaser that the bird might be split for blue because that would not have been a matter of significant interest at the time, whilst the potential of an emerald split would be significant.

Kind regards
Mike

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Ben
I still haven't been able to get hold of Raelene, she is a busy lady.
However, as the parents of my EmeraldTurquoise hen were TurquoiseBlue and EmeraldBlue they should be able to produce blue chicks. Also, my pair produced 2 turquoise chicks and 5 that were emerald but not turquoise so I don't expect to find that both my hen's parents were carrying Turquoise.
Nonetheless, I will ask her and get back to you when I get a response.
Kind regards
Mike

[trabots]

Aaron's breeding result only provides an absolute proof if we can be 100% certain that the Green parent is not split for blue as detailed in my previous analysis.

Hi Mike, the fact that the Green parent has now been proved split Emerald means it cannot be split to Blue because either way it would show itself.

If it is agreed that the Green parent was Green, Emerald has to be recessive. A mutation is recessive if it can't be seen in heterozygous form.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Willy
If emerald is a par blue mutation I agree with you entirely because the parent would be EmeraldBlue not Green.
However, from what others have been saying, if emerald was a structural gene it could be hard to detect in a Green bird if penetrance was low. So I would have thought we would need to make a close visual comparison between the parent in question and a Green bird not associated with emerald. If they proved to be visually exactly the same I would think the point was proved.
Kind regards
Mike

[Ring0Neck]

I have spoken to Aaron this arvo, after Willy.
Yesterday i had o/nite visitors and when they left a storm/hail was passing through could not go.
I told him to ring me when he can & i'll go to take pics.
I'm hoping within the next few days, patience, just a bit longer pls.
We've had unpredictable weather here, they say millions of $ in hail damage

Mike,

If you read this post last line I mentioned:
http://www.indianringneck.com/forum/vie ... 38#p105600

PS: These are not my results/birds. this pairing was done by a local breeder Aaron and split bird comes from JF which i also know.

[trabots]

Blue x Green /Emerald =

50% Green /Blue
50% EmeraldBlue

Mike why do you say

If emerald is a par blue mutation I agree with you entirely because the parent would be EmeraldBlue not Green.

when the genetics are quite clear? The hen is a Green split Emerald and will breed EmeraldBlues when bred to a Blue

[trabots]

Again, the hetero. Emerald IRN we know and I have bred has come from pairings with Blue. That said we know that they must have at least one Blue gene. The hetero. Emerald IRN has psitticin so it cannot have 2 Blue genes. The bird then is Emerald /Blue or is EmeraldBlue. If the former then we already have a Green series Emerald as any bird with BlueWildtype at the Blue locus is Green series split Blue. So where are all the Emerald Blue birds? All the hetero. Emerald IRNs have at least one Blue gene and if Emerald is dominant it is highly unlikely that a homo. Blue Emerald has never been bred. Recio, anyone, please dissect this sentence by sentence and come up with another logical explanation, no diverging into yellow structure and the like, just tell me where this logic fails and at which sentence. This is not scientific to keep ignoring facts, especially when the facts have been backed up by breedings and fit perfectly the story of the first Emerald obtained from the wild.

SF Emerald /Blue x Blue =

25% Green /Blue
25% SF Emerald /Blue
25% Blue
25% SF Emerald Blue where are these birds???

Folks, this is getting to be just like Terry's forum where I met exactly this kind of argument with Deep Blues and df Parblues. Nobody paid any attention to the evidence of DF Deep Blues and df Parblues on the perch but came up with all manner of what ifs. We all know who came out on top. In this instance nobody has risen to the challenge of taking the logic and trying to fault it. If the logic is faultless then then all the rest cannot be supported. Come on Recio, this is pay back time, counter the logic.

[Gratz]

Hello again
I have been reading and thinking , (Recio yes it was me that said what if green masks Emerald) what if different colours react differently with eachother like grey masks violet but grey and Emerald produce Emerald grey and if green masks Emerald but green and violet produce violet green now compare the 2 different offspring produced namely the Emerald grey and Violet green these 2 birds remind me of eachother violet green (mainly green bird with a violet blue Sheen) and Emerald grey ( Grey bird with a golden green Sheen) so as I asked early in this thread is Emerald an effect on colour or is it a colour.
I know this will not prove or disapprove either way weather we have a parblue or co dominant but maybe it might make us look at the situation in a different way.

Regards
Gratz

[trabots]

it was me that said what if green masks Emerald

If Green masks Emerald, Emerald is recessive.

grey masks violet but grey and Emerald produce Emerald grey

Grey destroys structural colour in case of Violet Grey however Grey does not destroy psitticins so Grey will not mask Emerald but combine with it in Grey EmeraldBlue most everything is explained by the action of a mutation. Nothing new here.

is Emerald an effect on colour or is it a colour.

Emerald or any other mutations are not colours, the actions of their mutant genes alter the wildtype colour. We then tend to name the mutation from our perceptions of the altered colour.

[Recio]

Hi Willy,

1. Do Emeralds Blue (or EmeraldBlue) show any psittacin? YES, of course ... otherwise how could they be fluorescents under uv? Fluorescence is due to the presence of the pigment ... so, whithout (almost) any doubt Emeralds Blue own psittacin.

2. Is this psittacin the same than in Parblues or different? I have been thinking for a while that it was a different molecule, since the fluorescence was not the same than in parblues, but we must keep in mind that the fluorescence emitted by the psittacin molecules must pass back through the cortex into the air, and whenever the structure of the cortex has been altered by a mutation (Emerald) it could result in a different refractive index, and thus, a change in the perceived fluorescence, even with the same psittacin. I do not know if it is just the quantity or also the type (wavelegth) of ligth which changes. I guess Johan can explain the physics much better than me. This could also explain the different fluorescence we can see in the head respective to the wings in lutinos , greens and parblues since it seems that feather structure in the head is different than in the body even in wild birds.

3. Let's suppose that we are dealing with an EmeraldWild BlueBlue. Willy's logics (very correct) is that if BlueBlue is present it is not possible to see any psittacin. Since this bird show psittacins it would mean that it is a parblue. This logic is sound whenever we are dealing with a single Blue locus, but we have two different psittacins (fluorescent and not fluorescent) with different distribution and regulation, making me think that the Blue mutation acts on a master gene controling (at least) two different genes, coding each for each psittacin type. Whenever a mutation appears in one of the controled genes, this could scape to the control of the master gene, and allow to express psittacins even if Blue is present.
Somehow feather structure and psittacin deposition seems to be interconected. Could this "conexion" appear at the genetic level? Could this explain the apparent higher Emerald offspring? Digenism?

We all have read and learn a lot with our logics. We have open our minds. This is the most important thing. We have more and more arguments for and against Emerald as a parblue. I agree with Willy and Ben: we should carefully analyse Willy's patched parblues trying to go further. We should do it from both points of view.. and not to bet our houses

Willy: could you open a new thread and make a summary of your results from the begining?

Thanks

Recio

[trabots]

Willy: could you open a new thread and make a summary of your results from the begining?

Recio et al, before my anger at the illogical that keeps on being presented here turns into tears. I will not take part any further. Reciio, your analysis is always the same, you throw in some possibility or whatever to skirt the issue, now you say there is another Blue locus to explain away my logic. I only brought up the 'patched Emerald's' as an example of one of many other things needing answers, now you want to use this in the basic EmeraldBlue proof.

[Gratz]

Willy

Thanks for answering my questions

Regards
Gratz

[trabots]

Grey does not destroy psitticins so Grey will not mask Emerald but combine with it

Grey destroys structure. So does this not prove that Emerald is not structural?

I will not take part any further.

I can't resist, I have an addiction to proving the rest of you wrong. Quite a challenge however when the forum members who know better don't post and therefore there is no real consensus. If an outsider were to read the lack of coherent argument in these threads they would not dream of participating. Have any of you thought that is why we can't get the Deons and Terrys and John Friskes etc etc
to actively participate? Come on Stefan, Ben why won't you do as I have pleaded with Recio to do; analyse my logic without bringing in scenarios which currently have never been seen in mutation aviculture before.

[Mikesringnecks]

Hi Ben
Has anyone told Aaron that he is possibly the owner of a mythical/rare SF Emerald Green or most likely only a Green/emerald?
Kind regards
Mike

[trabots]

Has anyone told Aaron that he is possibly the owner of a mythical/rare SF Emerald Green or most likely only a Green/emerald?

Mike sorry I know you asked Ben but I did speak personally with Aaron also. Aaron didn't need to be told he had a Green /Emerald. He was told on acquisition that that may be the case. His breeding of an EmeraldBlue confirmed it. Aaron had no idea what Parblues were genetically and I had the pleasure of giving him a lesson. A guy with no genetic knowledge to speak of and even he comes up with the right answer.

[trabots]

Whenever a mutation appears in one of the controled genes, this could scape to the control of the master gene, and allow to express psittacins even if Blue is present.

Recio, there is proof that the Blue mutation eliminates both kinds of psitticin right in front of us. We have a wildtype Green which is obviously possessing of possibly both flourescing and non-flourescing psitticins yet the Blue mutation eliminates both. If that is not enough we have the rainbow lorikeet or any number of South American birds which only have non-fluorescing psitticins and the Blue mutations for these birds eliminates it totally.

Willy's logics (very correct) is that if BlueBlue is present it is not possible to see any psittacin. Since this bird show psittacins it would mean that it is a parblue. This logic is sound whenever we are dealing with a single Blue locus

Sorry Recio, you did agree with my logic but as usual you make it difficult with an alternate Blue locus and psitticiin types etc etc. Why can we not ever get a clear cut answer based on the genetics we know not premised with hypothetical what ifs?

I will take it then that Emerald is Parblue unless another Blue locus is found. That said I will forget that new thread on Emerald logic.

Recio, extracting that quote above from you has made my day, seriously because you are the hardest of nuts to crack.