Deep and Emerald

[trabots]

I am almost ready to give up on you people, Recio has so befuddled the lot of you with his theories and some of you are letting the Alexandrine results cloud your thinking. The latter is irrelevant to this discussion, it is visibly not the same mutation.

Premise 1. Babu wrote an article in which he clearly described the wild capture and then breeding by a fellow named Bala. All of the young were Emerald phenotypes bred from the wild bird to a Blue over several years. The wild bird then has to be a homozygous Emerald. Terry Martin also confirms this simple fact from which the other premises fall neatly into place and are the ONLY options if the young from this bird were bred to a Blue. We stop here because you don't believe Babu or we go on. What is the consensus here? No new pairings, no new comment, just yes or no to Babu's account?

Premise 2. Bred to a Blue the young can ONLY be SF Emerald /Blue or EmeraldBlue. There are NO other outcomes in such a pairing possible. If you disagree then I quit because you don't know your basic genetics.

Premise 3. At least I have agreement here from one of you. Don't the rest of you think Babu bred one of these young to a Blue? Come on people.

Premise 4. a different Emerald phenotype was bred from this pairing. YES or NO. Isn't this what we need to know? If you can get this far the the following premises have the answer. Why not give your heads a collective shake and try and get to this point. If you can't I am quitting this group because it is then obvious I cannot have logical intelligent discussions with you.

Premise 5. if premise 4 was YES then the other phenotype was SF Emerald Blue and the wild bird was DF Emerald.

Premise 6. if premise 4 was NO then the single phenotype was EmeraldBlue and the wild bird was homozygous Emerald.

[trabots]

again I correct premise 5.

if premise 4 was YES then the other phenotype was SF Emerald /Blue and the wild bird was DF Emerald.

[trabots]

I cancel the correction. Premise 5 is correct in its original form.

[trabots]

The Oz birds are blue series emeralds, thus emerald blue or EmeraldBlue.

Johan, Parblues are NOT Blue series birds. They are not Green series either. What is 'emerald blue'? Is it SF Emerald /Blue or is it DF Emerald /Blue or is it DF Emerald Blue? I think it has to be the first one because we are dealing with a bird which is heterozygous for two mutations Emerald and Blue.

If they are Blue series birds then they cannot be EmeraldBlue. Blue series birds are homozygous Blue birds. Green series are non-Blue birds and non Parblue birds.

Correct use of terminology by all makes things much easier to understand.

[Johan S]

Johan,

Thanks.
I agree !
this secondary data might help, while we wait .. that's all i am saying.

I agree! So I'll try and steer you in the right direction. Next time you look at a Turquoise(Blue) harlequin (esp. the well marked harlequins that shows a very high melanin reduction, i.e. shows lots of yellow), pay very close attention to the various shades of yellow you see. I have the suspicion that the combination of emerald ("milky almost pastel" yellow harlequins) and parblue ("bright" yellow harlequins) has occurred and have gone unnoticed. We might even find our answer to wildtype x emerald (blue) in green series harlequins...

@ Recio:

Brainstorming question: Considering all the underlying stuff I don't really understand, what are the chances that the emerald mutation still has no psittacins, and that what we are seeing is something completely different that merely expresses itself similarly to what we know as fluorescent psittacin?

[Johan S]

The Oz birds are blue series emeralds, thus emerald blue or EmeraldBlue.

Johan, Parblues are NOT Blue series birds. They are not Green series either. What is 'emerald blue'? Is it SF Emerald /Blue or is it DF Emerald /Blue or is it DF Emerald Blue? I think it has to be the first one because we are dealing with a bird which is heterozygous for two mutations Emerald and Blue.

If they are Blue series birds then they cannot be EmeraldBlue. Blue series birds are homozygous Blue birds. Green series are non-Blue birds and non Parblue birds.

Correct use of terminology by all makes things much easier to understand.

Point taken, Willy! Here is the correct terminology for what I meant by emerald blue: emerald blue = bl/bl;em/em;
Legend:
bl+ = blue locus in the wildtype
bl = blue locus mutation
em+ = emerald locus in the wildtype
em = emerald locus mutation

Thus a homozygous blue homozygous emerald bird. And, therefore, it should have read DF emerald blue. I hope that clears it up.

To my mind, a mutation that occurs at the blue locus (bl/bl+ or blTQ/bl+ or any other combination) creates a blue series bird. Thus, parblues are included. I stand to be corrected, but that's the way I see it.

[Recio]

@ Recio:

Brainstorming question: Considering all the underlying stuff I don't really understand, what are the chances that the emerald mutation still has no psittacins, and that what we are seeing is something completely different that merely expresses itself similarly to what we know as fluorescent psittacin?

Hi Johan,

You are rigth ... the yellow colour we see in Emerald could be a different pigment, but it is highly unlike because the only pigments ever found in parrots are psittacofulvines. I think that it is a different psittacofulvine... but, as you say, there could be matter for brainstorming.

Regards

Recio

[Johan S]

Recio, this was my thinking also. Seeing as we get different melanocytes, why not different psittacofulvines? Perhaps they have always been included in the genetic make up of (most) bird species, and have now been "unlocked" by the emerald mutation. We also know that there are mutations that will reduce the effectiveness of eumelanin making it lighter and more greyish than black, and also mutations that may chemically alter the eumelanin to give it a lighter yet brownish appearance. So it might be possible that i) the non fluorescent psittacin is altered, or ii) that a dormant third type of psittacofulvine is activated.

Thoughts?

[Recio]

I feel that this will take a multi stage process. Using the breedings with Blue that I have just outlined, please ponder this:

Premise 1: a wild caught homozygous Emerald bird (logical if you believe Babu's published account) was bred to a Blue over several seasons and resulted in all the same Emerald phenotypes.

Premise 2: the young of this first breeding were all either SF Emerald Green /Blue OR EmeraldBlue. (the ONLY 2 possibilities)

Premise 3: at least one of these birds was subsequently bred to a Blue. (if not then I give up)

Premise 4: a different Emerald phenotype was bred from this pairing. YES or NO

Premise 5. if premise 4 was YES then the other phenotype was SF Emerald Blue and the wild bird was DF Emerald.

Premise 6. if premise 4 was NO then the single phenotype was EmeraldBlue and the wild bird was homozygous Emerald.

Lee, Johan, Ben and Recio do you agree with or disagree with Premises 5 and 6? If we can get agreement to this stage we can achieve a result without test breeding or theories or argument. If you don't agree please explain without diverting to other issues. Use the KISS principle. We then need Babu to answer Premise 4. If that answer from Babu is not forthcoming or is unclear, leaving doubts, then we have to test breed our heterozygous Emerald to a Green, I see no other way.

Hi Willy,

From now on I will only answer neuron-Willy but not gut-Willy. Here I recognize you again...

Your premises are exact and, as you say, the point 4 is the key point. I had answered it before but I will do it again: probably the SF Emerald Green and the SF Emerald Blue were different phenotypic birds but it was a very little difference since in both situations there is a decrease in the amount of psittacins and both birds dysplay the flashing effect. At that time the accepted theory was that, in general, parblues showed a wide range of variety in its expression (Ex: Indigo and Turquoise were taken as the same mutation). This idea combined with the similar (although different) phenotype of both birds would allow people to think that Emerald was another parblue. Thereafter SF Emerald homozygous Blue breeding only to Blue birds showed an apparent inheritance behaviour matching the expected behaviour of a parblue and further (erroneously) confirming breeders in their expectations.
Now every Emerald is a blue series bird and we do not have the Emerald green series to compare.

I do not now if Deon has produced any Emerald green from Chris's young Emerald Blue females this year or if we will have to wait one more year but time will tell us.

Regards

Recio

[Johan S]

Premise 1. Babu wrote an article in which he clearly described the wild capture and then breeding by a fellow named Bala. All of the young were Emerald phenotypes bred from the wild bird to a Blue over several years. The wild bird then has to be a homozygous Emerald. Terry Martin also confirms this simple fact from which the other premises fall neatly into place and are the ONLY options if the young from this bird were bred to a Blue. We stop here because you don't believe Babu or we go on. What is the consensus here? No new pairings, no new comment, just yes or no to Babu's account?

To summarise: No, I don't agree (fully) with Babu's findings.
Reason: We do not know whether the third type of psittacin only found to date in the emerald mutation is dominant or recessive to the wildtype.

A more detailed explanation:

The "wild captured" bird is of unknown genetic history. On this we should be able to agree. However, we can not conclude anything until bred with the wildtype. This is the basics of genetics as you very well know. Therefore, I do not fully agree with the findings until we investigate the results of breeding the bird to a wildtype. We can not simply assume that it will be recessive to the wildtype simply because the first offspring resembled heterozygous parblues. You have seen with your own eyes three types of psittacins. Non fluorescent, yellow fluorescent and blueish fluorescent. This is not mere speculation, it is something that exists and that you have seen. (Also no need for calibration of the cheap Ebay UV torch, that torch easily saturated our lab testing equipment (at normal light settings) when I personally conducted a scientific experiment using a spectrometer. It is a very high intensity beam. You only require a high intensity beam that will provide that boost in energy to bump electrons from covalent bonds into a higher energy state when they absorb photons, and then measure the frequency increase when the electrons again drop to a lower energy state (and releasing a single photon). Basic physics using Planck's relation e = hv. This is and has been part of University engineering curricula the world over as first year physics for many many years, so I'm sure you are familiar with it.)

Again, getting back to the basics of genetics: A mutation has been identified in a homozygous bird. What does it do to the wildtype? Is the third/new type of psittacin present and expressed, or not?

You argue that the blue mutation will strip psittacins. And all the lab tests to date have indeed shown that two of the three types have been stripped. I have written a proposal on how it could be possible that the blue mutation only removes naturally occurring psittacins while mutated or non-natural occurring psittacins may be immune. You are yet to comment on that. And yes, I am familiar with the basics of genetics and the definitions, as I am familiar with the limitations of the experiment that was used to get to the currently believed conclusion. What I am asking is that you, an experienced breeder that owns the mutation, speculate on 1) why and 2) how you think this new psittacin disappears in the wildtype, when not even the blue or partial blue mutation can strip it, as shown in your own breeding results. Terry and Babu has not commented on that (yet), so give us your own unique thoughts.

I will leave it at that and wait for the breeding results. We can talk until we are blue in the face, but we won't know until the wildtype x emerald results are available.

[Ring0Neck]

On Chris's website:
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... t_Babu.htm
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... n_Babu.htm

clear distinction blue series bird
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... lequin.htm

turquoise
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... onnors.htm

[Johan S]

On Chris's website:
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... t_Babu.htm
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... n_Babu.htm

clear distinction blue series bird
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... lequin.htm

turquoise
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/n ... onnors.htm

There you go, my friend. Consider it a hint/pointer from somebody that doesn't own either mutation.

Now identify the regions where the parblues act heavily, and then the regions where the emerald mutation act. And then find us a harlequin that shows a combination of those two birds, i.e. psittacin types.

[trabots]

There you go, my friend. Consider it a hint

You people are mad. Back to reality.

[Ring0Neck]

...regions where the emerald mutation act. - This is a good pic that shows it well:
my emerald grey
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/my/Emeraldgrey.jpg

I think it is easier said then done. Check out these Harleq.'s
http://parakeet.me/irn/f/pied.jpg

[Johan S]

There you go, my friend. Consider it a hint

You people are mad. Back to reality.

Willy hi,
I totally agree with you. Johan is completely bonkers.probably been bitten by a rabid lion ...

Hey hey gentleman. Play nice! I know where you both live and might just send somebody to sort you lot out...

[Recio]

Willy/Recio: has the deep been declared a unique mutation by the gurus? What is its status?

Hi Lee,

There are not gurus. Terry seems to have given up the yahoo list and there is not any leadership to validate or not new ideas/findings. Willy's work in Deeps is quite conclusive but there are still some remaining questions: is deep a new mutation or a new allele of a known mutation? ... in this case which one? these questions are under work by Willy and he has already some answers ... so I think that he is the person to comment on it.

Regards

Recio

[Recio]

Hi Lee,

I have not seen any reference to Deep in Mutavi pages but I am quite sure that we will find a lot of info in the new Deon's book (Ringneck Colour Genetics) which is already available in Chriss site:

http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/publications/

What a nice Christmass present !!!

Regards

Recio

[Johan S]

Hi Lee,

I have not seen any reference to Deep in Mutavi pages but I am quite sure that we will find a lot of info in the new Deon's book (Ringneck Colour Genetics) which is already available in Chriss site:

http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/publications/

What a nice Christmass present !!!

Regards

Recio

I was under the impression that Inte has already written to the mailing list and concluded that there is no evidence in the feather structure to make it unique from the dark factor. I don't know how he got to that conclusion, as I think Willy has it spot on when he said that the homozygous deep looks very different from the homozygous dark. I have come to the same conclusion when I compared the heterozygous deep tail feather he sent me to a heterozygous dark. Even then, the difference in phenotype is striking.

Unfortunately, in regards to the deep topic, I have very sad news. Two days ago somebody broke into our aviaries by cutting it open from the back wall and stole only one bird, the bird I was sure to carry deep. This is a tremendous setback and loss. I have since removed all public access to my pictures on the internet, and we will be installing some much needed security features around our aviaries. This is a disgusting thing to do to someone else. I hope Your Maker will show kindness to you, as I'm currently struggling very much to do the same thing.

[Ring0Neck]

Johan,
Sorry to hear the sad news.

I hope that you'll eventually get the bird back !

[Johan S]

Thanks for the sympathy, fellow forumites.

This is the post I was referring to (scroll down a bit to message of Inte) regarding the dark / deep findings:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Gene ... sage/19964

[Sherjil]

Sorry to hear about your loss Johan, hope you can catch the thief and recover the bird !

We had a similar incident in our locality, the guy who's birds were stolen did spread the words on the local birds blog immediately and by chance the thieves contacted a blog member (who was living in a different city) to sell the stolen birds. The thieves didn't know that the news of stolen birds has already been published among fanciers. Already knowing about the theft and having info about which birds were stolen, the blog member took a courageous step to capture the thieves red handed & managed to convince the thieves to sell him the birds by delivering them at his office at midnight . This happened the same day when birds were stolen i.e. the thieves stole the birds from one city and traveled to another city to sell the birds as they couldn't find a local customer.

The thieves were two young boys and when they reached at his office to deliver the birds, the blog member was ready for them along with his other friends he managed to get hold of the boys and recovered the birds which were put in a small pouch of cloth. Later on the thieves were handed over to the police and birds returned to their rightful owner.

What I mean by telling the whole story is that if you want to take steps to recover your bird, please do it asap.

regards

[willowisp71]

Johan,

What absolute MONGRELS!! That is terrible news And was it just the one bird they stole? How unfortunate for it to be that particular bird too. Grrrr!! I hope the thieves get busted and you get your bird back.

I too, (like Fi), have been closely following this thread, and even though I am new to all this genetics stuff, I have found this discussion on the emerald mutation most fascinating, and I am learning so much from it all. I find myself wishing I was in a position to help further the investigation into the mutation, but alas, I will just have to follow everyone else's studies for now

[trabots]

Willy said:

Premise 1: a wild caught homozygous Emerald bird (logical if you believe Babu's published account) was bred to a Blue over several seasons and resulted in all the same Emerald phenotypes.

Premise 2: the young of this first breeding were all either SF Emerald Green /Blue OR EmeraldBlue. (the ONLY 2 possibilities)

Premise 3: at least one of these birds was subsequently bred to a Blue. (if not then I give up)

Premise 4: a different Emerald phenotype was bred from this pairing. YES or NO

Premise 5. if premise 4 was YES then the other phenotype was SF Emerald Blue and the wild bird was DF Emerald.

Premise 6. if premise 4 was NO then the single phenotype was EmeraldBlue and the wild bird was homozygous Emerald.

Recio said: Your premises are exact and, as you say, the point 4 is the key point. I had answered it before but I will do it again: probably the SF Emerald Green and the SF Emerald Blue were different phenotypic birds but it was a very little difference

It is a rainy day here in Dawesville so I decided to have a another read. Recio was the only one to try and KISS. If as he says a SF Emerald Green and a SF Emerald Blue were so similar in phenotype to have been missed, surely subsequent breedings of these birds to Blue would have exposed them? If they were so similar in phenotype then both would have been used by breeders the world over.

SF Emerald Green /Blue x Blue =

25% SF Emerald Green /Blue
25% Green /Blue
25% SF Emerald Blue
25% Blue

Nobody has reported breeding Green birds from their Emerald breedings with Blue. So logic says Premise 4 has to be NO and Premise 6 has to be the case.

One more thing, where does the description of "blueish flourescence" come from? Here is the UV image from Deon.

Reciso said: The psittacin expressed by Emeralds is of a different nature, dysplaying an even distribution and a bluish fluorescence

EmeradBlue, df Emerald
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

Not even and not bluish in my eyes. This whole theory of a new psitticin which is not blocked by Blue to support a new theory, when in Recios' own words my premise based approach has been proven by the lack of any Green birds bred, does not stand up. My opinion and interpretation of a logic based approach.

Please attack (address) only what I have addressed in this single post, no references to Alexandrines or theories. Cheers.

[Ring0Neck]

Hi Willy,

I have to agree with your point said above.
If you allow me i'd like to add s-thing :

Willy said:

Premise 1: a wild caught homozygous Emerald bird (logical if you believe Babu's published account...)

Babu is a man that should be trusted, given his extensive work done so far.
However... Who were the persons that caught this bird in the wild? were they from India?

Now, given human nature and money can be a bad mix and we all know what people will do for Mr. $ ... anything.
Think of all the internet fraud, spam, and the extent they go to to achieve that...

* Allow me to put forward a posssible scenario :

Whoever sold this bird to Babu let's assume found it at a local breeder or market, from a breeder who has only a handfull of cheap birds. this bird Emerald stands out from the rest, they do a deal and get it for a couple of bucks.
They know the only way to pass it on at top dollar and without question is to say it was caught in the wild.
But in fact this bird was inbred (hence DF emerald ) to Blue birds from the start and this bird is DF Emerald Blue.
What IF? a similar scenario to the above suggestive story really happened?

A decent reward for this bird is probably a year's wages or more in India so they will make sure they get top $ and no questions asked.

To summarise my point: We trust Babu but we know nothing of whoever caught this bird, and as being genuine wild and not bred by some breeder in which case the df emerald could very well be an emerald blue.
If that was the case Point 4 becomes invalid.

* Also if the bird was wild df emerald, the rest of the flock had to be full of splits and colored emeralds not just 1 bird.

All in all, as Recio suggested: Let's breed it to a green and none of the above matters anymore.

[trabots]

Here is a different angle which I proposed last year on Terry's forum.

There are many birds now being bred from EmeraldBlue to TurquoiseBlue. These EmeraldTurquoise birds have a phenotype which is half way in between the two. If Emerald was not an allele of Blue we would be expecting these combination birds to have a greater psitticin reduction than either mutation. The effect on psitticin would be compounded.

As another example we can look at the PallidIno which again has a phenotype half way in between the two mutations. On the other hand if we bred a Pallid to a Dilute, non-allelic mutations, the Pallid Dilute will be lighter than either.

This brings up the other proof which I have already brought up on Terry's forum.

EmeraldTurquoise x Blue =

50% EmeraldBlue
50% TurquoiseBlue

OR

SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue x Blue =

25% Emerald Blue
25% Emerald TurquoiseBlue
25% TurquoiseBlue
25% Blue

So if we breed a Blue or another Emerald TurquoiseBlue we know that Emerald is dominant.

[trabots]

To summarise my point: We trust Babu but we know nothing of whoever caught this bird, and as being genuine wild and not bred by some breeder in which case the df emerald could very well be an emerald blue.
If that was the case Point 4 becomes invalid.

* Also if the bird was wild df emerald, the rest of the flock had to be full of splits and colored emeralds not just 1 bird.

Ben, I would say that by far the bulk of parrots in bird markets in India are wild not aviary bred.

Emerald Blue x Blue = 50% Blue birds, none were bred.

If it were a wild df Emerald there would be some split Emeralds around but nothing else. This is by far the most likely scenario than:

If it were a wild DF Emerald there would be some SF Emeralds around. This is very unlikely as they trap these birds by netting whole portions of flocks then picking through them to find mutants, only one was found? Another method would be nest inspections for feathered mutant chicks. They would be unlikely to target a specific bird in a flock.

[Recio]

Here is a different angle which I proposed last year on Terry's forum.

There are many birds now being bred from EmeraldBlue to TurquoiseBlue. These EmeraldTurquoise birds have a phenotype which is half way in between the two. If Emerald was not an allele of Blue we would be expecting these combination birds to have a greater psitticin reduction than either mutation. The effect on psitticin would be compounded

This is true whenever both mutations act on the same psittacin type ... but this is not the case : each mutation acts on a different psittacin, and thus, there is not compounded effect

This brings up the other proof which I have already brought up on Terry's forum.

EmeraldTurquoise x Blue =

50% EmeraldBlue
50% TurquoiseBlue

OR

SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue x Blue =

25% Emerald Blue
25% Emerald TurquoiseBlue
25% TurquoiseBlue
25% Blue

So if we breed a Blue or another Emerald TurquoiseBlue we know that Emerald is dominant.

I completely agree ... but the only Emerald TurquoiseBlue I have ever seen was in Chris site and it was a young bird. Do you know any breeder having checked for the above pairing ... and the offspring ratio?

Recio

[trabots]

I said: If Emerald was not an allele of Blue we would be expecting these combination birds to have a greater psitticin reduction than either mutation. The effect on psitticin would be compounded.

It should read psitticin increase not reduction.

Recio said:This is true whenever both mutations act on the same psittacin type ... but this is not the case : each mutation acts on a different psittacin, and thus, there is not compounded effect

Recio, other than a perceived colour difference in the UV reflectance what proof is there that the psittacins are different? This is why I previously lamented the lack of accurate measuring in terms of wave length, both the UV reflectance and the exciting UV light in the UV 'studies' done so far.

[trabots]

Further to this discussion. We know that Turquoise adds back wild type psitticin to a Blue bird or put another way, removes wild type psitticin over much of the bird, leaving what we see in patches on a TurquoiseBlue bird. Emerald supposedly replaces wild type psitticin over ALL of the bird with a different type of psitticin. If this is so and if these two mutations are non-allelic and therefore would be complimentary, why does Emerald still leave wild type psitticin on an EmeraldTurquoise or Emerald TurquoiseBlue? If complimentary Emerald should replace ALL wild type psitticin, whether spread all over the bird as in a Green bird or patched in a TurquoiseBlue bird.

[Ring0Neck]

Emerald Turquoise Grey from Len

[Recio]

Recio, other than a perceived colour difference in the UV reflectance what proof is there that the psittacins are different? This is why I previously lamented the lack of accurate measuring in terms of wave length, both the UV reflectance and the exciting UV light in the UV 'studies' done so far.

The possibility of different psittacin types was suspected before any uv reflectance study since parpatched mutations (Turquoise, Indigo, ...?) show different sex and age dependent regulation (different neuroendocrine control), different distribution, different intensity, ... than Emerald.

Recio

[Recio]

Further to this discussion. We know that Turquoise adds back wild type psitticin to a Blue bird or put another way, removes wild type psitticin over much of the bird, leaving what we see in patches on a TurquoiseBlue bird. Emerald supposedly replaces wild type psitticin over ALL of the bird with a different type of psitticin. If this is so and if these two mutations are non-allelic and therefore would be complimentary, why does Emerald still leave wild type psitticin on an EmeraldTurquoise or Emerald TurquoiseBlue? If complimentary Emerald should replace ALL wild type psitticin, whether spread all over the bird as in a Green bird or patched in a TurquoiseBlue bird.

You are mixing even and patched psittacin when you speak of "wild" psittacin and, thus, the conclusions are not rigth.
What we call Emerald phenotype is not the pure effect of the Emerald mutation but of the Combination of Emerald and Blue and we do not know for sure which features depends on each mutation. Ex: the lack of red ring ... is it dependent on Blue or on Emerald ... or on both? Does a green Emerald show a red and black ring? ...or only black? ... or black and white... or a tricolour ring like Turquoise? Thus we absolutely need to obtain a Green Emerald to answer these questions. Have you got any news from Deon's Emeralds? Has he obtained the green Emeralds or not? Is this the great surprise in his book?

Recio

[trabots]

Recio said: You are mixing even and patched psittacin when you speak of "wild" psittacin and, thus, the conclusions are not rigth.

So Recio you are now saying that we now have 4 psitticin types, 2 wild types of even and patched and Emerald type and non-fluorescing type. I always thought the patched psitticin was just patches of a single wild type psitticin left on a Parblue bird. You now say even psitticin is both wild type and Emerald type. Mucho confuso.

Have you got any news from Deon's Emeralds? Has he obtained the green Emeralds or not? Is this the great surprise in his book?

Deon just got his Emeralds last year so I don't know how he could have bred your 'Green Emerald' by now. I am still looking for a pure Green IRN but if that fails I will put an Emerald hen to a Malabar cock. They make gorgeous lovely pets if all else fails. I should get 2 hybrid phenotypes if you are correct. Please everyone hold off on the hybrid bashing, another forum.

[Recio]

So Recio you are now saying that we now have 4 psitticin types, 2 wild types of even and patched and Emerald type and non-fluorescing type. I always thought the patched psitticin was just patches of a single wild type psitticin left on a Parblue bird. You now say even psitticin is both wild type and Emerald type. Mucho confuso.

No "mucho confuso" but quite clear ... when the will to understand is at work: in wild birds there are, at least, two types of psittacins: fluorescent psittacin (yellowish fluorescence) and non fluorescent psittacin. The psittacin we can find in par-patched mutations (Turqquoise, Indigo, ...) is the same type than the fluorescent psittacin of wild birds but in a lower amount (change in quantity)and dysplayed showing a concentration gradient. The psittacin we can find in Emerald is different (already discussed one hundred times, it is a change in quality) and, looking at its distribution, seems to be a different quality of the non fluorescent psittacin, which has become fluorescent (bluish fluorescence). So all together : two "wild" psittacins (yellow fluorescent and non fluorescent) and a different mutated psittacin in Emeralds = 3 psittacin types.

Deon just got his Emeralds last year so I don't know how he could have bred your 'Green Emerald' by now. I am still looking for a pure Green IRN but if that fails I will put an Emerald hen to a Malabar cock. They make gorgeous lovely pets if all else fails. I should get 2 hybrid phenotypes if you are correct. Please everyone hold off on the hybrid bashing, another forum.

Deon's Emeralds were females so we could expect some offspring for this year ...
It seems that there are not blue/parblue mutants in Malabar parrots so it looks a good choice to be sure that there is not any split. Anyway this species show quite brillant feathers ... so before hybridization you should be sure that this wild species is not already showing the same mutated psittacin than Emeralds in IRN. Have you had a look at them under uv?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/psittaculaworld/ ... boides.htm

Recio

[trabots]

Molussus, I can see TurquoiseBlue. i would only be guessing about any other structural mutation. That is why I have lost interest in these Pieds, they pale away all structural colour unlike the Hillerman or Salaan Pieds. An IndigoBlue Violet Pied at least stays violet blue in colour.
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

[Ring0Neck]

Hi Molossus

From what i have seen:
turq to mask emerald NO
and vice versa -No, but.. i recall in CT Turq. Emerald birds, emerald almost completely eliminates the patchiness of the turq.
this is what i have seen, rather strange/interesting phenomenen.

[Recio]

Willy/Recio et al : is it possible for turq to mask emerald and vice versa??? Your responses is eagerly awaited.

Hi Lee,

Hard to answer because we do not yet know the single effect of Emerald (if it exists as independent mutation) and because we do not yet know the possible interactions in the metabolic pathway of all the psittacins types.

Chris posted a pic of a SF Emerald TurquoiseBlue (or EmeraldTurquoise if Willy preferes) but this is the only combination I have ever seen and it was a young bird without the ring. The Emerald Turquoise Grey posted by Ben is blurred and the addition of Grey does not help in identifying the other mutations.

Deon couldn't get any offspring from his Emerald females (just confirmed to me). May be because of the seasonal change from Australia to SA in seasonal breeders like the IRN. We'll see next year ... and perhaps Willy will have his Malabar-IRN hybrids (I do not think it is a bad idea whenever the offspring is not allowed to reproduce ... if they ever are fertile ...).

Regards

Recio

[trabots]

father EmeraldBlue, mother Deep Violet Blue

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

same family, no patches on father or mother

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

Recio reckons father is hiding 'Sapphire', could be the mother. The patches were there at fledging, contrary to Babu's saying any patching is only evident at a year in a 'Sapphire'. In any event I have bred 2 EmeraldParblues apparently.

[Ring0Neck]

Possible Saphire,

It is an option to be analized..
If Emerald is an independent mutation to parblues.
Otherwise, it is perhaps that some emeralds show more parblue features then others.
Like this:

[Ring0Neck]

Molossus


Are you the owner of the first ever Green Emerald???
or it just me or the picture?
very interesting results indeed.

here with Hue/Sat sys

[trabots]

Please post latest images of your 'Emerald' Alex. Cheers.

[trabots]

Molossus, that is a lovely bird however I again say it is not the same mutation as the EmeraldBlue IRN. It is a Parblue yes, which one I could only guess. If you look at the Blue Alex it is the same colour as a Blue IRN, the Lutino Alex is also the same colour as a Lutino IRN. The base structural and psitticin components for Parblues between the species are the same so logically the EmeraldBlue Alex would be the same colour as the EmeraldBlue IRN. You do have a bird with even looking psitticin distribution but that alone will not automatically mean Emerald. The df Turquoise IRN after all has probably the most even distribution of psitticin in any Parblue IRNs I have seen. The intriguing part is the parent which shows another phenotype only slightly different than wild type. Now that needs investigating. You have no problems finding Alexandrines which can be sure to be clear of Blue so your proof of inheritance will be much easier to achieve ignoring of course the extra year required to mature.

[Ring0Neck]

Recio said: The Emerald Turquoise Grey posted by Ben is blurred and the addition of Grey does not help in identifying the other mutations

Here's a pic of the TurquoiseBlue Emerald - pic provided by Bob


Also for reference a Pallid Emerald mature hen

[Recio]

Hi Ben,

I guess Bob has paired the Emerald TurquoiseBlue female to a blue series male ... Did he get any Blue or any TurquoiseBlue Emerald offspring?

Really good pics. It would be great to look under uv the female Pallid Emerald and to compare to a Lutino female for type and distribution of fluorescent psittacin.

Regards

Recio

[trabots]

Willy going back to my violet turq dom pied hen...her one offfspring is emerald dom pied(see pics)...how is this possible if the hen isnt masking emerald?? your thoughts here?

Molossus, I bred a TurquoiseBlue Pied this year also which looked emerald coloured in the nest. How about an image of the bird on the perch. It is really pointless trying to determine things with young birds as they often do surprise as they mature.

[Ring0Neck]

Molossus

Here are the pics done in Hue/Sat - keep in mind that diff lighting cond. type camera etc will slightly change color.
best using same camera & settings and lighting envirmonment, even then it is best used as a reference only.

Your Alex
http://parakeet.me/irn/f/2013-01-11-674_leeAlexz.jpg

http://parakeet.me/irn/f/2013-01-11-673_leeAlexz.jpg

Willy's
http://parakeet.me/irn/f/willizEmeraldBluez.jpg

Bob's:
http://parakeet.me/irn/f/turqblEmeraldT ... dBobz1.jpg

[trabots]

I used the UV torch and looked at the 'patched Emeralds' I bred from an Emerald (no patches) and a Deep Violet Blue (no visible psitticin). Somehow I have bred from this pair last year 2011 a ParblueBlue Violet and 2012 2 x ParblueBlues which fluoresce like TurquoiseBlues or IndigoBlues. The first bird, other than being darker than a Violet Blue did not show green until 6 months, the two this year showed at fledging (eliminating 'sapphire' Recio), one more so than the other. They are definately not EmeraldBlues under UV although you would swear the unpatched colour was the same as an EmeraldBlue. I also looked at their Violet EmeraldBlue and Deep EmeraldBlue siblings which fluoresced strongly over the whole bird and just to be sure I looked at an unrelated EmeraldBlue which did the same as expected.

patched 'EmeraldBleu' not
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

I am wondering about the Deep mutation having a part in this. This is a young 2012 DF Deep Blue I bred and you can clearly see psitticins in the flights. I discussed this with Martin Gatt who probably bred the first DF Deep Blue and he also confirmed the greenish tinge to these birds in their first year. The psitticin totally disappears after that. Do we have another Parblue in the Deep??

young DF Deep Blue showing green
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

[trabots]

These images show the greenish tinge to the front of the young Deep Blue

young Deep and Dark Blues
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

[Johan S]

I bred from an Emerald (no patches) and a Deep Violet Blue (no visible psitticin). Somehow I have bred from this pair last year 2011 a ParblueBlue Violet and 2012 2 x ParblueBlues which fluoresce like TurquoiseBlues or IndigoBlues.

Willy I know you are not a fan of the hypothesis, but that result can be consistent if your pairing was:

emerald green / parblue x deep violet blue

That would mean that we could interpret it as emerald green and emerald blue having an almost identical phenotype, and emerald being an incomplete dominant mutation not allelic to blue and parblue. You'll only have a 25% chance of breeding a normal green phenotype (with or without deep/violet etc.) too, so one should expect a green series bird to pop out at some stage. Interesting that it hasn't, though!

I have also noticed the very slight greenish sheen in the deep blue feather you have sent me. It is quite apparent if one pays attention to it. You make a very interesting point about it perhaps being a parblue mutation. Yet, one can not deny that the first deep bird brought into Oz was a green series bird. Therefore, it can't be allelic to blue or parblue, because you yourself have spent significant time and effort to breed SF/DF deep blue birds. Can it just so be that one can still see certain types of psittacin in blue series birds? I know you feel strongly about the basics of genetics, which suggests that no blue bird can express psittacin, but how else explain that we have SF/DF deep green and SF/DF deep blue phenotypes (i.e. it must be incomplete dominant), yet see that greenish tinge on the main tail feather in both green and blue series birds carrying the deep mutation.

[Ring0Neck]

Quiet fascinating observation Willy.
Looking at the patched bird through use sat colors it still looks as if emerald is there, somewhat
as you mentioned:

although you would swear the unpatched colour was the same as an EmeraldBlue