Deep and Emerald

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:08 am

Johan S wrote:
Recio wrote:Before going further ... do you know which were your emerald male parents?
Are you thinking that one of the parents might have been an indigo, and that the cock bird carries both the emerald and the indigo mutation?

However, if this result is from a 'pure' emerald blue, it does add weight to the parblue theory (if the psittacin appearance is age dependent).

I have bred 10 young without an IndigoBlue popping up. The cock looks exactly like it should.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:19 am

Johan S wrote:Molossus, that will depend entirely on whether the emerald mutation changes the expression of psittacins over time, or whether it is fairly constant from fledglings to adulthood (i.e. independent on hormones). The pictures that Willy has uploaded is the first evidence I've seen (on the internet, I don't own the mutation) that suggests that there is actually an increase over time. This is a piece of the puzzle that has been reported differently in the past. This is probably why Recio wants confirmation of the parentage of the father/cock to be sure to exclude indigo.

PS: It's not my camera, but I'll ask if I can bring it along.

I have seen enough birds to know that this one is not Indigo. The proof of this is that if it is it could only be IndigoEmerald and therefore ALL young would have to be IndigoBlue or EmeraldBlue. This pair have bred a straight Deep Blue. We are looking at birds which are 1 and 2 years away from full colour. I know this one is a Violet Emerald because it is in the same cage with another sibling 2012 Violet Emerald which by the way coloured up with no patchyness for fledging.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:30 am

trabots wrote:The proof of this is that if it is it could only be IndigoEmerald and therefore ALL young would have to be IndigoBlue or EmeraldBlue. This pair have bred a straight Deep Blue.

The proof you suggest is only true if indigo and emerald are both alleles of the blue locus, which is what we are asking to be investigated. Your results in this nest have shown that emerald is not a blue locus mutation, IFF the cock is indeed emerald indigoblue. I would still like to see the outcome of a green x emerald pairing under UV. Until that time, I will remain open minded.

What were the parents of the cock bird, Willy?

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:47 am

Hi everybody,

I mostly agree with every commemt from Johan and I think that Willy's IRN is a Deep Violet ZaphireBlue, without carrying Emerald. Reasons:
1. Emerald has been described as an expression of psittacins at fledging. This bird does not show any psittacin at fledging .... so no Emerald.
2. Emerald displays an even distribution of psittacin in the whole bird .... but this bird clearly shows a patched pattern restricted to the wing coverts .... so no Emerald.
3. The bird's psittacin appears at a later stage and only on the areas expressing the highest psittacin in patched parblues: wing patches. In patched mutations there is a gradient in the expression of psittacins with a maximal at wing patches and a lower concentration expreading away. In patched parblues morphotypes the concentration of psittacins is Turquoise > Indigo > Zaphire. The psittacin distribution in this bird matches the expected distribution in Zaphire morphotypes: low concentration and only on wing coverts.
4. The time evolution of psittacin expression is also typical of the Zaphire morphotypes: it appears after moulting, without any apparent psittacin at fledging.

How to prove or disprove these ideas? You all know it: studies on fluorescent reflectance under uv will allow to know the type of psittacin expressed by this bird: yellow fluorescence if Johan ( ... and me) is rigth (it is a patched parblue) or blue fluorescence if Willy and Lee are rigth (it is Emerald).

Let's say that I am rigth ..... where does the patched parblue gene (Zaphire) come from? I think that it comes from the Emerald male. This bird would be an heterozygous Emerald ZaphireBlue male allowing also to explain the rest of the offspring obtained till now. Why the Zaphire is not apparent in the male? Two possibilities:
1. Emerald acts by supressing the expression of patched mutations and thus the bird appears with an even distribution of psittacin.
2. The very low expression of patched psittacin is not detectable in a bird already dysplaying the even psittacin.
Again to prove or disprove uv studies would be necessary.

Regards

Recio

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:21 pm

Hi Lee,

My idea is that Emerald is not a parblue mutation but an independent incomplete dominant mutation ... and so the father of this IRN chick can hold Blue, a parblue mutation (Zaphire or Indigo to be checked by breeding) and Emerald, explaining the whole offspring produced as Willy explained.

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:26 pm

I think that Willy's IRN is a Deep Violet ZaphireBlue, without carrying Emerald

Zaphire?? Sapphire has not been proven in homozygous form. I have bred 'sapphires' from IndigoBlues. The birds tail feathers are not nearly as dark as a Deep Violet's tail. It is Violet only, they match perfectly with its Violet EmeraldBlue sibling. The bird will be the same as that sibling I assure you. It already has much more psittacin than the amount attributed to the 'sapphire'

[emerald has been described as an expression of psittacins at fledging]

Who has described this Recio?

My idea is that Emerald is not a parblue mutation but an independent incomplete dominant mutation

If Babu's story about the first wild caught df Emerald is true (it bred 100% EmeraldBlues paired to a Blue) then it is highly unlikely it is incomplete dominant as for a DF to appear, firstly 2 SF mutants would have to exist in the wild to produce it, and for this to happen there would have to be many more than 2 SF mutants in existence for 2 of them to pair up and breed. No SF birds have ever been reported from the wild. To prove, either breed an EmeraldBlue to a Green or an EmeraldTurquoise(Indigo) to a Blue. In the former if all young are Green then it is not dominant. In the latter if anything other than EmeraldBlues or Turquoise(Indigo)Blues are bred that would confirm Emerald is not an allele of Blue.

I am also certain that the (green) true emerald will make its appearance soon

The df Emerald has been bred and is almost identical to the EmeraldBlue albeit with greener wings and tail. This is the homozygous bird whether it is a Parblue or Recessive. Deon Smith has imported one from Oz. It is not a normal appearing bird.

All I have shown is that psittacin in EmeraldBlue birds can have a delayed onset displayed by initial patchyness or none at all in the case of this bird.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:53 pm

I further suspect that the lighter variant morph in the alex can be classified as the aqua

All these references to Aqua in naming heterozygous Parblue birds. Aqua was chosen by the gurus of the INS as the name for a df Parblue lovebird in which no Blue mutant existed. The df Turquoise has the even distribution of psittacin attributed to Aqua also. So which is the lovebird's Aqua, df Emerald or df Turquoise? We already know df Indigo is patched.

[img][IMG]http://i1305.photobucket.com/albums/s54 ... seBlue.jpg[/img][/img]

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:55 pm

df Turquoise on left TurquoiseBlue on right

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

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:25 pm

Violet EmeraldBlue siblings 2011 L, 2012 R
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

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

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

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:09 am

This topic will remain a heated discussion until we have established the outcome of wildtype x emerald. Is there anybody who have done this? Do we know 100% for sure what the result will be? If not, how can we then assume that it will be recessive to the wildtype? Just because the gurus said so?

Willy, you mention that the idea of emerald being incomplete dominant doesn't sound feasible based on the fact that Babu have used a DF emerald. I disagree. Put yourself in a position where you have zero experience with the emerald mutation. As a matter of fact, to your knowledge this mutation doesn't exist. Now, without any knowledge, consider this: 1) The SF emerald blue looks similar to other parblues. Not exactly the same, but similar and close enough to be easily misidentified in a wild flock over a distance. And at least close enough that they won't attract the attention of the trappers. 2) The emerald green will look almost exactly like the wildtype and also easily misidentified. I suspect that one will only really see the difference with UV. So it actually makes perfect sense that it was the DF emerald that got noticed and trapped, because that became sufficiently different from normal parblues to attract attention.

To understand the above point, you really need to maintain an open mind. I am trying to do the same. We will know only when somebody steps forward and show us a picture of a green / emerald and a green under UV and both look exactly the same. Otherwise, we'll be dealing with a green emerald and green that will look different, thus emerald has dominated the wildtype.

So I ask again, is there anybody that have paired a wildtype x emerald that can report the result to us?

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:12 am

@ Johan,
This has been done by Deon present year and we are expecting his results. Lee reports in Alex point also to Emerald as an independent mutation (not parblue).

@ Willy,
At what age could you detect the Emerald mutation in the other siblings?
Wich was the psittacin pattern in the other Emerald siblings: patched or even?
This bird seems to be different to his other Emerald siblings (...and this is the reason we are discussing about him), and because one of the siblings is a Deep Blue, the only way to understand his inheritance pattern is accepting that Emerald is not an allele of Blue, as suggested by Johan. In fact, Willy, your results are further confirming my hypothesis ...

You asked : who has detected Emerald at fledging? .... Babu, Chris Whisp, Lee (in Alex), .... and also you, if I remember correctly.

Hope Deon will soon communicate his results ...

Regards

Recio

davis · Post by **davis** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:22 pm

WHERE I CAN THIS UV TORCH?

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:56 am

I keep repeating myself but a df Emerald has been bred, 2 in fact by Chris Whipps and one is now with Deon Smith.

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

Despite the blurry image you can clearly see that the bird is greener in the flights. You doubters are saying they are both Blue versions of hetero and homo dominant Emeralds and the Green versions are yet to be discovered. How much greener will that bird be I wonder? The fact is Babu's mate bred only what we know as heterozygous Emeralds from his pairing of the wild bird to a known Blue and both gentlemen did not notice the difference between the wild 'Emerald' and its young. It was only because I nagged about it on Terry Martin's forum that Chris took a closer look and there they were. If you think the wild bird was a DF Emerald then the young would all have been SF Emeralds /Blue. The young were all what we and Babu currently know as EmeraldBlues so how could they have been Green versions of SF Emeralds? If they were, all the breedings that have occurred so far have never produced Blue versions, only two phenotypes have ever been bred in Emerald.

The Emerald is recessive and the wild bird was visual because it was homozygous and when it was bred to a Blue all the young received an Emerald gene and a Blue gene and those birds were also visual which could only have happened if Emerald and Blue were alleles. I know that Terry Martin subscribes to this reasoning also.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:44 am

Have you seen the offspring of a dbl factor emerald bred to a wildtype green bird ? if yes what does this bird look like?

The ones I know about are 2011 birds, so no. The problem is finding a 100% Green not split for Blue bird or this would have been cleared up long ago and only needing a 'SF Emerald'.

If we can agree that the first wild Emerald was homozygous and bred to a Blue, your preferred outcome is 'SF Emerald Green /Blue' for the young? These birds are the source stock. Babu obviously got his Emeralds from his acquaintance and therefore we all probably did indirectly. That would mean we already have 'SF Emerald Greens'. Why do these birds always breed more of themselves when bred to Blue? Most will be split Blue (they started off like that and were nearly always bred to Blue) and yet we never get another phenotype when half the young should be Blue and half of those being 'SF Emerald Blues', the missing phenotype.

emerald has been described as an expression of psittacins at fledging

This year 2 of my EmeraldBlues have patches on their wing coverts, not on the back where we usually see Parblue breakthrough and where the late onset Violet EmeraldBlue shows it clearly. Otherwise they are EmeraldBlue. I was referring to the existence or not of patchyness in EmeraldBlues at fledging. The "even distribution of psittacin" attributed to the Aqua lovebird most surely described the adult plumage without reference to it at fledging other than they are easily identified. One must remember that this variableness occurs in the other 2 Parblues also. Why can we hardly see the Turquoise in many Blue birds at fledging yet it is readily apparent when other mutations are thrown into the mix? It is not unreasonable to be unsurprised at some patchyness in some EmeraldBlues at fledging when this has never been ruled out by anyone.

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:13 pm

trabots wrote:
Have you seen the offspring of a dbl factor emerald bred to a wildtype green bird ? if yes what does this bird look like?
The ones I know about are 2011 birds, so no. The problem is finding a 100% Green not split for Blue bird or this would have been cleared up long ago and only needing a 'SF Emerald'.

If we can agree that the first wild Emerald was homozygous and bred to a Blue, your preferred outcome is 'SF Emerald Green /Blue' for the young? These birds are the source stock. Babu obviously got his Emeralds from his acquaintance and therefore we all probably did indirectly. That would mean we already have 'SF Emerald Greens'. Why do these birds always breed more of themselves when bred to Blue? Most will be split Blue (they started off like that and were nearly always bred to Blue) and yet we never get another phenotype when half the young should be Blue and half of those being 'SF Emerald Blues', the missing phenotype.

emerald has been described as an expression of psittacins at fledging
This year 2 of my EmeraldBlues have patches on their wing coverts, not on the back where we usually see Parblue breakthrough and where the late onset Violet EmeraldBlue shows it clearly. Otherwise they are EmeraldBlue. I was referring to the existence or not of patchyness in EmeraldBlues at fledging. The "even distribution of psittacin" attributed to the Aqua lovebird most surely described the adult plumage without reference to it at fledging other than they are easily identified. One must remember that this variableness occurs in the other 2 Parblues also. Why can we hardly see the Turquoise in many Blue birds at fledging yet it is readily apparent when other mutations are thrown into the mix? It is not unreasonable to be unsurprised at some patchyness in some EmeraldBlues at fledging when this has never been ruled out by anyone.

Hi Willy,

Some thoughts related to your comments:

Probably the first wild Emerald was a Green DF Emerald. This bird showed a decrease in psittacins looking a bluish bird and Babu thougth it could be another parblue. Let's remember that the main hypothesis at that time was that mutations acting on psittacin were Blue and Parblues the latter with a very different expression from bird to bird. With this idea in mind Babu put the wild Green DF Emerald to a Blue and got Green SF Emerald/Blue making him to think that his hypothesis was rigth. Today we know that DF and SF Emerald Blues are very similar, and we can reasonably think that Babu "interpreted" the Green SF Emerald/Blue offspring as a confirmation that the new mutation was a new parblue. With this idea in mind every Green SF Emerald/Blue has been paired to Blue and the phenotype we can see today is the result of a combination of mutations : Emerald (most SF excepting Deon's female offered by Chris Whipps) and homozygous Blue.

Then we have your results. It is great to see that you have more than just one bird with the patched psittacin. Now the maths concerning patched parblue offspring are better... you have 2 SF Emerald BlueParblue and one BlueParblue and one homozygous Blue (Deep Blue). Willy, your results further confirm that Emerald is an independent mutation. Once again you have proved it ... even before getting the golden prove from Deon ... but you do not want to accept it although, from your posts, I can see that the idea is slowly poping up in your mind.

The place where psittacin appears first depends on strains (head, wings, back) ... so you can not say that it is not a patched parblue just because in your parblues strains it is different.
About the prevalence of the Green SF Emerald/Blue (the "missing phenotype" as you say): its prevalence would be 50% only in a closed population, but they have been continously bred to Blues and thus its prevalence is continously decreasing. The prevalence of a mutation remains the same only in a closed population and without factors disturbing alleatory mate choose, predation, ...
If you look at the Aqua Alex of Lee it is easy to understand that the first Green Emerald IRN has been erroneously thought to be a parblue. I am quite sure that the Aqua Alex is the same mutation that the Emerald IRN ... but we still lack the ultraviolet studies to confirm the change in fluorescence type, and thus, probably psittacin type.

If we accept that Emerald is an independent mutation and that the birds phenotype we know as Emerald is a combo of Emerald and Blue ... which features depend on Emerald and which depend on Blue? Some months ago I defined Emerald phenotype as a lost of the patched psittacin (including the red ring) and a change in the type of even psittacin. Today it seems unrealistic to me that the same mutation could do both things (although not impossible if the even psittacin was a precursor of the patched psittacin) and I bet that the lost of the patched psittacin (and the red ring) depends on Blue, and only the change in even psittacin type depends on Emerald. Since the even psittacin is found everywhere in the birds feathers I would expect the Green Emerald phenotype to look like a bluish bird with green wings and head and a red ring (similar to Turquoise) and a flashing colour due to iridiscence and fluorescence (specially under direct sun ligth).

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:28 pm

I repeat for the 3rd time, Babu did not breed the first wild caught Emerald. Babu obtained his first birds from the breeder.

Babu "interpreted" the Green SF Emerald/Blue offspring as a confirmation that the new mutation was a new parblue

I don't think Babu was thinking Parblue or any theory he was just thinking "new mutation, let me have some". Now these birds are the same ones that we have in our aviaries and the only other phenotype to date are Chris' df Emeralds. Babu has never said the birds we now have are different to the first ones bred yet you keep saying that the first birds were 'Green SF Emerald /Blues' and yet now according to you our birds are 'SF Emerald Blues'. If as you say the first 'Green SF Emerald /Blues were bred to Blues, how have we gone so long without all of the outcomes of such pairings occurring, as in 2 SF Emerald phenotypes, Green and Blue? These outcomes would be Blue, SF Emerald Blue, Green /Blue, SF Emerald Green /Blue.

This is the patchyness of one of the birds, the other has more.

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

and with a young Deep EmeraldBlue
[img]http://i1305.photobucket.com/album ... .jpg[/img]

What we see in this patchyness is the reverse of what we see in young TurquoiseBlues or IndigoBlues where the patchyness is the green coming through on a Blue bird. Here we have remnant green on an EmeraldBlue which will disappear leaving the bird with even psitticin distribution. This not indicative of an additional Parblue in the bird.

Once again you have proved it ... even before getting the golden prove from Deon ... but you do not want to accept it although, from your posts, I can see that the idea is slowly poping up in your mind.

You couldn't be further from the truth Recio.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:32 pm

Willy hi, I attach a pic of the Emerald Green alex bred by me. The bird is alongside its normal/blue sibling. The third sibling is a blue emerald chick. all three chicks(together with a lutino and another normal green/lutino) can be seen in the group pic sent earlier in the thread.
I bred these off an emerald green cock and a green/blue hen. Your thoughts (and the forums) will be appreciated. From the pics you will see that there is a very slight difference visually between the emerald green and the normal green sibling.
regards,

If the parents are as you say, how did you breed a 'blue emerald' chick when only one of the parents is split Blue and your 'emerald' is dominant?

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:41 pm

Recio, Molossus and others who question my thinking. You believe that the bird that we have in a heterozygous Emerald is a 'SF Emerald Blue' and that a 'SF Emerald Green' exists and needs to be re-discovered. What happened to that most basic genetics rule that by definition the Blue mutation eliminates ALL psitticin? Why are these 'SF Emerald Blue' birds a shade of green and not blue in colour if they can have no psitticins? Molossus, your 'SF Emerald Blue' Alex definately has psitticins so it cannot be homozygous Blue.

Molossus' Alexandrines to me are a different mutation. The colour of an Alex is very close to the colour of an IRN so we would expect the same mutation to be very close in appearance in both species, it is not. What if this Alex mutation is both incomplete dominant AND and allele of Blue? That would give 2 visible heterozygous phenotypes, one with a mutant gene and a wildtype gene and one with a mutant gene and a Blue gene. The homozygous phenotype would have 2 mutant genes so there couldn't be a Blue version as there is no room on the locus. This would also explain the breeding results.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:45 pm

Molossus, firstly I take nil offence to my thinking being questioned, secondly we have to be consistent in our terminology.

am willing to openly state that the breeding of a green wild color to the emerald blue indian ringneck will produce similar a green emerald since..

We use Blue to describe the mutation and blue to describe the colour. You are saying an Emerald Blue bred to a wildtype will produce a similar Emerald Green. You or Recio still have not answered how a Blue bird can have any psitticin which all Emeralds do have in both heterozygous and homozygous forms.

it is my opinion that the alex emerald shares the same trait as the indian ringneck.

Yes but the colour in the 'Emerald Blue' is not the same as in the EmeraldBlue IRN when it should be if they are the same mutation. You have bred two different 'Emerald' phenotypes out of a bird with only one parent being 'Emerald'. As they both have psitticin we know that neither are Blue birds. Both can only have one copy of the 'Emerald' gene even if your parent is 'DF Emerald'. So how do we get this second bluer 'Emerald' phenotype which still has psitticins? It is what it is because it has a Blue gene also and it combines at a single locus with the 'Emerald' gene to produce 'Emerald'Blue. I can't explain the phenotype of the parent except if your mutation is incomplete dominant AND Parblue. The 'Emerald Green' parent can't be split Blue if this is the case. What were the parents of the 'Emerald Green' parent? Have you bred a Blue from the parents?

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:50 pm

I am surprised that this far no one has bred blue emeralds to wild green or even wild green/blue and reported results.

As I repeat myself again, where do we find an IRN which is 100% certain not split for Blue? That is why it hasn't been done. I would already have done it. Using a Green /Blue won't prove anything.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:57 pm

Please, nobody reply except with an answer to my question and then we can progress.

You or Recio still have not answered how a Blue bird can have any psitticin which all Emeralds do have in both heterozygous and homozygous forms.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:07 pm

Your opinion is that the emerald blue is the sf wild mutation. What outcome do you predict when this bird is paired to a normal green?

Sorry I forgot to address this. I know that the first discovered Emerald was a df Emerald. Bred to a wildtype all the young would be wildtype /Emerald. The sf wild mutation will not be 'emerald blue'. That would be exceedingly unlikely to have a wild bird carrying genes for 2 mutations. The sf wild bird will be a Green /Emerald and it would appear normal UNLESS it is incomplete dominant as well as Parblue and then we COULD have a 3rd phenotype in the heterozygous Emerald without a Blue gene.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:37 pm

If we accept that Emerald is an independent mutation and that the birds phenotype we know as Emerald is a combo of Emerald and Blue ... which features depend on Emerald and which depend on Blue?

Recio, just so this statement is not forgotten. How exactly do we get a combination bird of Blue and anything else and that still has psitticin pigments?

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:24 pm

Molossus, you would be far easier to understood if you were consistent in your terminology. Use caps when referring to a mutation ie: Emerald. Put the two right beside each other if alleles ie: TurquoiseBlue. It is accepted that you use inverted commas around a colloquial or unproven name ie: 'Pastel' and if referring to the homozygous dominant or Parblue use DF or df respectively so we know what you are talking about. An example:

Since these emerald cocks produced the blue emerald

So what do you mean by "blue emerald"? I assume you mean EmeraldBlue in my thinking or 'SF Emerald Blue' in your thinking which I have pointed out is impossible in a green bird. If you mean 'SF Emerald /Blue' then you have a problem because that is the same phenotype as 'SF Emerald Green'.

Cheers.

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:40 pm

trabots wrote:Please, nobody reply except with an answer to my question and then we can progress.

You or Recio still have not answered how a Blue bird can have any psitticin which all Emeralds do have in both heterozygous and homozygous forms.

Hi Willy,

This question has been deeply considered in the yahoo forum (with the help of Johan).
Have a look to the posts concerning : "A model trying to explain psittacin pigments".

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:39 pm

This question has been deeply considered in the yahoo forum (with the help of Johan).
Have a look to the posts concerning : "A model trying to explain psittacin pigment

Recio, I confess to not having the time to read those theoretical discussions. Most people on this forum would struggle also. How about referencing an existing example of a parrot which is homozygous for Blue AND carries psitticin pigments?

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:45 pm

Hi Willy,

There is not any other parrot showing Blue and psittacins at the same time (excepting Alex) ... and there is not any other parrot owing the Emerald mutation (excepting Alex) ... so this is not a valid argument. This is like saying that because SL-ino will eliminate almost completelly any melanin, the combo SL-ino Cinnamon can not show any melanin.

I agree that the proposed model is theoretical since there are not studies proving or disproving it. I built it up only to show a theoretical model to explain the hypothesis of Emerald as an independent mutation, because I made to myself the same question. This hypothesis was formulated even before getting the uv studies from Deon, only on the basis of the differences of the regulatory mechanisms of colour, the distribution, intensity, ... between Emerald and the patched parblue mutations. Deon showed that the type of fluorescence was also different further confirming the differences between Emerald and patched parblues (in fact you were the first to see it but you did not want to go further in the consequences of your finding, exactly the same than with your first description of fluorescence in 2003).

Now you have a specific patched parblue allele that was "inside" your Emerald male and which seems different to Indigo or Turquoise. Lucky man!!! It seems to fit in the description of Saphire and you have the opportunity to produce the first homozygous Saphire morphotype. Will you do it?

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:38 pm

There is not any other parrot showing Blue and psittacins at the same time (excepting Alex) ... ... so this is not a valid argument.

Which Alexandrine mutation are we talking about? If there is one then the argument is valid and supports your theory as a possibility. If there are nil the argument is still valid because it supports the other view.

and there is not any other parrot owing the Emerald mutation (excepting Alex)

Again, which Alex and how do you come to this conclusion? We still do not know the full story about Emerald IRNs so how can you logically conclude that an Alex mutation is the same?

his is like saying that because SL-ino will eliminate almost completelly any melanin, the combo SL-ino Cinnamon can not show any melanin.

This is nothing at all like that. It is common knowledge that Ino does not totally eliminate structural colour nor does it totally remove melanin so it is totally within reason for there to be a variable effect with these when combined with other mutations. With Blue however it does totally remove all psittacins and unless you can prove the "Alex" above, there is zero precedent in parrots so a logical thinker would discount this as a possibility.

Deon showed that the type of fluorescence was also different further confirming the differences between Emerald and patched parblues (in fact you were the first to see it but you did not want to go further in the consequences of your finding, exactly the same than with your first description of fluorescence in 2003).

Deon did not look at newly fledged EmeraldBlue IRNs and I challenge you to find any descriptive work on these young birds. To then say with 100% certainty that because I have young EmeraldBlues with 'patches' that I have 'sapphire' in my birds is premature. You refer to "patched Parblues" including I presume Turquoise and Indigo. I have proven that the df Turquoise is not patched yet you go on ignoring my "studies".

Now you have a specific patched parblue allele that was "inside" your Emerald male and which seems different to Indigo or Turquoise. Lucky man!!! It seems to fit in the description of Saphire and you have the opportunity to produce the first homozygous Saphire morphotype. Will you do it?

You continually refer to 'sapphires' and ignore my own breeding results having produced birds which "seems to fit in the description of Saphire" yet were produced by an IndigoBlue. You seem to pick and choose which or whose results that fit your own theories and ignore the ones that conflict. In general you keep referring to birds which are either only heterozygous and/or are young, both very poor choices when it is the full expression of a mutation which defines the phenotype of that mutation.

Now you have a specific patched parblue allele that was "inside" your Emerald male and which seems different to Indigo or Turquoise. Lucky man!!! It seems to fit in the description of Saphire and you have the opportunity to produce the first homozygous Saphire morphotype. Will you do it?

Of course not. You again lose track of basic genetic rules. If my EmeraldBlue cock is hiding 'sapphire' then bred to a Blue the young should be EmeraldBlue and 'sapphireBlue' only, he has bred a Blue. I know this isn't valid if Emerald is not Parblue, so if he is 'Emerald /Blue' then I should have had half of the young green birds, after 10 young they have all been Blue. So if he is 'Emerald Blue' where does the 'sapphire' gene hide out, unless you now think 'sapphire' is also not a Parblue.

I am fully open to the idea that Emerald may be a dominant mutation which can only be proven as discussed a zillion times. What I am forcefully arguing about is the premise that there are homozygous Blue Emeralds which defies logic UNLESS you can prove to me that a Blue mutant can have psitticin pigments. You refer to the "Alex" being Blue and having psitticins and I presume the same bird being Emerald at the start of your post now prove it with facts not theory.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:36 pm

after 10 young they have all been Blue

My mistake, it should read 'after 10 young none have been Green'. Parblues are not Blue.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:33 pm

What if : Emerald is the true Turquoise? and not a Parblue mutation.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:10 am

I have learned over the decades that it is important to never say never with mutations

Molossus I totally agree with that, however when logic is tossed out the window I get forceful. The Blue mutation is defined not by its colour but by the microscopic examination of its feather structure. This has shown that the Blue mutation prevents the production of all psitticin pigments in the cortex or outer layer. This fact precludes any parrot with any psitticin being a Blue. This is one of the most common mutations in parrots and in all cases Blue mutant parrots have no yellow or red feather colours anywhere.

To argue that Emerald IRNs, which are that colour because they have psitticin in their feathers, exists in the Blue series and is the bird that we have in our aviaries is illogical and may I say plain stupid. Now your Alexandrines are a special case if they are what they are. They are not the same as in the Emerald IRN and as I have previously said they cannot be said to be Aqua as that is the name of a homozygous lovebird mutation and you have not even bred a df Alexandrine in this mutation. You have obviously a Parblue which means a recessive mutation which also is an allele of Blue. What is unique is that you have 2 heterozygous phenotypes one with a single Blue gene and one slightly different from wildtype which I agree with you is a Green series bird with no Blue gene.

Recio himself has proposed theory(s) that recessive mutations are in fact incomplete dominant, only that we need special tools like UV to detect these heterozygous or split birds. The term 'visual split' has been around for decades with many breeders saying they can identify split recessive birds. This fits your Parblue Alexandrine perfectly. Your parent sf Parblue is a 'visual split' Green series bird, you bred from it another one and you bred a ParblueBlue. The only other phenotype you will breed is the df. I should be using SF and DF as this Alex mutation is incomplete dominant for you to be able to see the heterozygous Green series phenotype.

So back to your statement "never say never" you have tentatively confirmed in my mind anyways that an incomplete dominant mutation can also be Parblue or allelic with Blue. Nobody has ever said never to this possibility however genetically all the gurus would agree that a mutation can never be fully expressed in a Blue bird if that expression involves psitticin. pigments.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:56 am

molossus -no, i'm not saying, i'm rather.. asking..just brainstorming, putting all options on the table, sometimes we miss important clues because we don't start with a clean slate, one wrong assumption and it'll throw us in wrong direction.
I do not have nowhere near enough knowledge to say.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:48 am

trabots wrote:Of course not. You again lose track of basic genetic rules. If my EmeraldBlue...

If we stop that sentence right there, we would be looking at the word EmeraldBlue, a concept used to describe one mutation (Emerald) in terms of another mutation (the allelic interaction of emerald with blue). Yet the basics of genetic rules states that no mutation may be described in terms of another mutation and should always be done in terms of the wildtype. That's of course if we really want to argue semantics based on the basics of genetics.

To get back to the actual topic: Willy, you're point is well made! Maybe your approach is a bit forceful, but, I'll repeat, you're point is not lost and being ignored and is very thought provoking.

What I find shocking and somewhat disheartening is that these birds have been around for +-10 years, yet everybody seems only interested in breeding them to violets and dark factored birds in the blue series. How is it possible that we do not know 100% for sure what the result is with wildtype x emerald?

Willy, you mention that you need a pure green bird, and not a green / blue for the above test. Would you please explain that to the forum, as I'm not following 100%. My thinking is that two homozygous birds would be the best experiment, but not a requirement. One would simply need to breed more offspring if using one heterozygous bird and should expect 3 phenotypes, rather than 2. That would still be conclusive evidence, even without a pure green bird by only considering the green series offspring.

Ring0Neck wrote:What if : Emerald is the true Turquoise? and not a Parblue mutation.

Ben, wonderful idea! One evening I was enjoying a drink and thinking about the idea that emerald might be part of a completely separate blue locus than the one we have identified to date. More than one blue locus occurs in budgerigars, and we've also seen two separate ino locii in many bird species, so the idea might not be far fetched. This concept ties in wonderfully with your idea. However, I'm relatively sure that the breeding results for blue x emerald is available. Willy, can you confirm that in this case all offspring are EmeraldBlue (or Emerald Blue, depending on which side of the fence one is sitting)?

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:38 am

http://www.ourringnecks.com/apps/photos ... =171370239
have a look at photo 7 as well.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:38 am

Breeding an Emerald to a Wildtype is a must, but till next season? what else can we do to narrow things down?

I'm thinking that a few breeders out there has already paired up an Emerald with a Homozygous Turquoise.
If so, then we could observe their results since that is half as good as a pairing to a wildtype.

Assuming Emerald acts the same as Turquoise then we would have the following scenario:
turquoise x EmeraldBlue

Offspring:
turquoiseBlue
turquoise
emerald turquoiseBlue
emerald turquoise or turquoise/emerald?

So we could get 2 emerald phenotypes, or not, right?
** If emerald does not match exactly the Turquoise genotype, then all emeralds will be TurquoiseBlue ....

Again, back to basics... if emerald is a parblue how can we have 3 mutations at the blue locus? we already know that we have emerald turq. blue
unless Johan is right ...as he said:

One evening I was enjoying a drink and thinking about the idea that emerald might be part of a completely separate blue locus than the one we have identified to date. More than one blue locus occurs in budgerigars, and we've also seen two separate ino locii in many bird ...

We should do this pairing regardless to see results I guess.

How i'm i doing? Have i got everything wrong so far? or did i miss some

I should put the bottle away now

raw brainstorming (i know most prefer to keep it inside their heads not to look silly)

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:16 am

Trabots : This is nothing at all like that. It is common knowledge that Ino does not totally eliminate structural colour nor does it totally remove melanin so it is totally within reason for there to be a variable effect with these when combined with other mutations. With Blue however it does totally remove all psittacins and unless you can prove the "Alex" above, there is zero precedent in parrots so a logical thinker would discount this as a possibility.

Here I will use the type of arguments you like: Who has shown that Blue does completelly remove all psittacin? Could you refer me to the histologiocal studies? .... it could just be that the remaining psittacin is under our perception threshold ... So, as you like to say, this argument is not valid.

Recio: Deon showed that the type of fluorescence was also different further confirming the differences between Emerald and patched parblues (in fact you were the first to see it but you did not want to go further in the consequences of your finding, exactly the same than with your first description of fluorescence in 2003).

Trabots: Deon did not look at newly fledged EmeraldBlue IRNs and I challenge you to find any descriptive work on these young birds. To then say with 100% certainty that because I have young EmeraldBlues with 'patches' that I have 'sapphire' in my birds is premature. You refer to "patched Parblues" including I presume Turquoise and Indigo. I have proven that the df Turquoise is not patched yet you go on ignoring my "studies".

For the "challenge": In Chris site you can find the Aviary Life publications:
http://www.mcw-indianringnecks.com.au/p ... _jun11.htm

You already know this, so I do not really understand why you ask for it. You have the birds and you know how to do the uv studies ... are your results in young not patched Emeralds different of Babu's description?

Your studies in patched mutations, till now, have confirmed the "morphotype theory" so that a DF Indigo looks like TurquoiseBlue. And, as you say an IndigoBlue looks like a DF Saphire. Those morphotypes, its inheritance and the expected phenotype have also been extensively studied in the yahoo list ... but you struggle reading such things and thus make again the same questions ...

Recio : Now you have a specific patched parblue allele that was "inside" your Emerald male and which seems different to Indigo or Turquoise. Lucky man!!! It seems to fit in the description of Saphire and you have the opportunity to produce the first homozygous Saphire morphotype. Will you do it?

Trabots : You continually refer to 'sapphires' and ignore my own breeding results having produced birds which "seems to fit in the description of Saphire" yet were produced by an IndigoBlue. You seem to pick and choose which or whose results that fit your own theories and ignore the ones that conflict. In general you keep referring to birds which are either only heterozygous and/or are young, both very poor choices when it is the full expression of a mutation which defines the phenotype of that mutation.

First I do not ignore your results. Furthermore I am refering to your results so often that sometimes I am feeling as if I was Willy's reporter. The only problem is that our "interpretation" is different (Ex the patched psittacin showed by some of your Emeralds) and systematically you refuse to do anything I suggest to prove or disprove (Ex: look at your young Emeralds under uv)

Second : Please do specific questions and avoid general comments meaning nothing.

Recio : Now you have a specific patched parblue allele that was "inside" your Emerald male and which seems different to Indigo or Turquoise. Lucky man!!! It seems to fit in the description of Saphire and you have the opportunity to produce the first homozygous Saphire morphotype. Will you do it?

Trabots : Of course not. You again lose track of basic genetic rules. If my EmeraldBlue cock is hiding 'sapphire' then bred to a Blue the young should be EmeraldBlue and 'sapphireBlue' only, he has bred a Blue. I know this isn't valid if Emerald is not Parblue, so if he is 'Emerald /Blue' then I should have had half of the young green birds, after 10 young they have all been Blue. So if he is 'Emerald Blue' where does the 'sapphire' gene hide out, unless you now think 'sapphire' is also not a Parblue.

Willy, please read again what you have written:

You again lose track of basic genetic rules

This is an unnecessary, agressif and erroneous comment.

If my EmeraldBlue cock is hiding 'sapphire' then bred to a Blue the young should be EmeraldBlue and 'sapphireBlue' only, he has bred a Blue.

Here you are rigth but doing the wrong reasoning: your cock has bred one phenotypic Blue, 2 phenotypics patched Emeralds and one patched Blue. The only way to explain this offspring is that your cock is SF Emerald ParblueBlue (to me SF Emerald SaphireBlue but it could be discutable) and accept that Emerald is an independent mutation..

...so if he is 'Emerald /Blue' then I should have had half of the young green birds, after 10 young they have all been Blue

... but he is not "Emerald/Blue"... He is SF Emerald SaphireBlue !!!

Regards

Recio

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:37 am

trabots wrote:
I have learned over the decades that it is important to never say never with mutations
Molossus I totally agree with that, however when logic is tossed out the window I get forceful. The Blue mutation is defined not by its colour but by the microscopic examination of its feather structure. This has shown that the Blue mutation prevents the production of all psitticin pigments in the cortex or outer layer. This fact precludes any parrot with any psitticin being a Blue. This is one of the most common mutations in parrots and in all cases Blue mutant parrots have no yellow or red feather colours anywhere.

To argue that Emerald IRNs, which are that colour because they have psitticin in their feathers, exists in the Blue series and is the bird that we have in our aviaries is illogical and may I say plain stupid.

Hi Willy,

Try to decrease your degree of agressivity about 50% and do not call people illogic or plain stupid because you do not agree with the others... probably the facts will prove that the others were rigth ...

Something about psittacin pigments and its regulation : Blue mutation has proved to be able to block the production of the non fluorescent even psittacin as well as of the patched psittacin (both patched yellow fluorescent and non fluorescent). The psittacin expressed by Emeralds is of a different nature, dysplaying an even distribution and a bluish fluorescence, pointing to a different type of psittacofulvine pigment. We can not affirm that Blue must block its synthesis because it is a different molecule which is not present in any other mutation... and could be produced steps before the point of enzymatic block due to Blue... but all this has also previously been reported.

Lee : it would be very highly appreciated to know how your Emerald Alex look under uv to know for sure if we are facing the same mutation than in IRN.

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:11 am

but you struggle reading such things and thus make again the same questions ...

NOT

Try to decrease your degree of agressivity about 50% and do not call people illogic or plain stupid because you do not agree with the others... probably the facts will prove that the others were rigth ...

Recio, try to cut the sarcasm when you relate stories to the group about how I find these things and don't do anything about them and that you feel "as I was Willy's reporter", and that "I have already answered my own question". You are right, I find these things and report what I see, you don't find a thing, you breed bugger all IRNs and certainly not the ones of which we speak, yet you are the expert on what they are without having them in your hand. You skirt around all plausible answers which are supported by facts in pursuit of theory proving. Without the birds you just have second hand incomplete information. All theory no facts. You can fool the rest with your theories but ............

Sorry folks, I am old fashioned I guess. I go by what has happened in parrots to date. You can follow Recio's lead and go off postulating all manner of theories about how something could happen. It is just that it has never happened yet so why would it happen now? There have been no weird breeding results of EmeraldBlues, the breedings with Blue and /Blue birds or themselves match exactly what happens in EITHER recessive inheritance or incomplete dominant, which I have said I would be totally happy with if proven. So what has happened with Emerald IRNs for several of you to now completely focus on the ability of a Blue parrot to retain psitticin pigments in 'theory' when that has NEVER been reported before? That is illogical.

Willy, you mention that you need a pure green bird, and not a green / blue for the above test. Would you please explain that to the forum, as I'm not following 100%.

The proof of inheritance is EmeraldBlue (SF Emerald /Blue) x Green. If this mutation is dominant then you should get half the young a different Green phenotype which then means the bird is SF Emerald /Blue. If nothing other than normal Greens are bred then it is EmeraldBlue and half the young will be Green /Blue and half will be Green /Emerald. You can't use a bird with a Blue gene for pairing because we know that whatever the inheritance, the test bird has one Blue gene, which we don't want to combine with another Blue gene and thus spoil the experiment. We are looking at the Emerald gene in isolation.

The 2nd Blue (Blue') Budgerigar I understand is in fact a df Parblue (Blue'Blue') with surprise, no psitticin, it looks like a Blue. In sf form (Blue'Blue) it has psitticin. It doesn't entail another Blue locus. I stand ready to be corrected on this one but only with a reference, no theories.

Lee : it would be very highly appreciated to know how your Emerald Alex look under uv to know for sure if we are facing the same mutation than in IRN.

There are no current scientific studies being done with UV on these mutations. They are being looked at with cheap Ebay purchased UV torches with no way of calibrating or changing the wave length and then recording the wave length of the reflectance. Half the parrots in the world do not have UV reflectance. Shining a UV light on an Alexandrine which already in regular light has a different phenotype seems futile. Proven Alexandrine mutations look like their IRN equivalents, if they don't they logically are not the same. The real proof would be breeding a hybrid and if it is also mutant then we know it is the same.

What will looking at my young EmeraldBlues under UV prove, that indeed they have patches? Isn't it more logical to wait until they are mature and then see if they are different? Isn't it less stupid to try and identify a mutation with confidence by looking at the mature phenotype AND therefore full expression? Otherwise it is just theory fodder and speculation.

Your studies in patched mutations, till now, have confirmed the "morphotype theory" so that a DF Indigo looks like TurquoiseBlue. And, as you say an IndigoBlue looks like a DF Saphire. Those morphotypes, its inheritance and the expected phenotype have also been extensively studied in the yahoo list ... but you struggle reading such things and thus make again the same questions ...

So what is a "morphotype theory" Recio? You conclude that when I say a df Indigo looks like a TurquoiseBlue you take it to mean it is the same phenotype, wrong, I said "looks like". I don't believe in 'sapphires', I only speculated that if there were a 'sapphire' its df form would logically look like an IndigoBlue. I struggle to read your theories Recio because that is all they are, and there have been so many they hurt my head and they are not "extensive studies". I only want to know how IRNs inherit so that I can make good pairing choices to achieve what I want. I have nil interest in the chemistry involved. I ask the same questions because they aren't answered by your theories. This engineer drilled holes in the ground using facts not theories.

Here you are rigth but doing the wrong reasoning: your cock has bred one phenotypic Blue, 2 phenotypics patched Emeralds and one patched Blue. The only way to explain this offspring is that your cock is SF Emerald ParblueBlue (to me SF Emerald SaphireBlue but it could be discutable) and accept that Emerald is an independent mutation.

.

Here you go again, looking at young newly fledged birds and making a conclusion about their whole genetic make-up. Your numbers are incorrect but irrelevant. The "patches" on the "phenotypics" are totally different to that on the "patched Blue" but you lump them in together as your proof of 'sapphire'. In the two the lower wing patches are wildtype green on a just fledged EmeraldBlue bird. In the latter they are spots of violet green on back and mantle of a 15 month old Violet. Where is the logic in concluding it is 'sapphire' for all three? It is logical in saying the latter bird is a Violet EmeraldBlue because that is what it is morphing into, the same bird as its younger sibling.

... but he is not "Emerald/Blue"... He is SF Emerald SaphireBlue !!!

what total rubbish, see above

You people can accept the way I argue and not take it personal, accept my disgust when facts are ignored (see above), be logical when making conclusions from ALL of the facts and we can all learn things, OR let the moderator know you are unhappy with me and I will leave.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:18 am

Yes, this is indeed a heated discussion.

Let's summarise the two viewpoints quickly:

A: The emerald mutation must be an allele of the blue locus, as for the homozygous blue bird we will find no psittacins based on microscopic studies. Therefore, it will act incomplete dominant over blue series birds, yet recessive to the wildtype

B: The emerald mutation must be considered an independent incomplete dominant mutation for both the green and blue series birds. This is based on the fact that we observed a different colour fluorescence (blue) for birds carrying the emerald mutation when compared to the wildtype, parblues and inos, which shows a yellow fluorescence under UV.

Now I would like to remind everybody about the scientific process, where an hypothesis can be shown true and become accepted fact, until such time that the measurement techniques improve and an hypothesis/fact may be revisited with an improved experiment, and ultimately refined and revised. This is an iterative process well accepted in the scientific community for many centuries using the process of peer review.

Thus, I think we should perhaps take a look at what Willy has proposed.

trabots wrote:The Blue mutation is defined not by its colour but by the microscopic examination of its feather structure. This has shown that the Blue mutation prevents the production of all psitticin pigments in the cortex or outer layer. This fact precludes any parrot with any psitticin being a Blue. This is one of the most common mutations in parrots and in all cases Blue mutant parrots have no yellow or red feather colours anywhere.

Willy, this definition might be right, but your conclusion is WRONG. However, let me explain. Perhaps you will entertain an open mind? The experiment was done with an homozygous blue bird. The blue mutation is an accepted mutation that will strip the wildtype of it's natural occuring psittacin. Notice again, we are comparing with the wildtype, NOT with the blue series. Always compare the action of a mutation with the wildtype. The underlined result (in the part I quote form you) was investigated and accepted as truth prior to an in depth investigation into the emerald mutation. This means that emerald blue (or EmeraldBlue) was NOT considered during the experiment and, therefore, may not feature as part of the conclusion. To my knowledge, a DF emerald feather has not been investigated under a microscope. You are welcome to prove me wrong. Not all psittacins have been investigated, thus we can not conclude that the blue mutation will strip all psittacins. That's why I say you are wrong, because we are dealing with a new, mutated psittacin type that is clearly different under UV. I don't know anything about molecules, but observations have shown that this psittacin type is DIFFERENT. The protein will need to be investigated. From what I know about physics, we can expect that a different element within the periodic table will be present in this type of psittacin, as it is such elements that contribute to the colour of the fluorescence. And if there is a new element within the protein, how can we conclude that the blue mutation will act the same way? Thus, the valid conclusion would be that the experiment should be repeated, but this time with the proper feather showing the new psittacin type. Notice the scientific process: a new piece of evidence comes to light, thus we should repeat the experiment to see if our original conclusion was correct. The result may be the same as the original experiment, or it may be different. We CAN NOT conclude yet what it will be.

So, what does this mean?

I propose that we revisit (AS GENTLEMEN) the currently accepted definition for the blue mutation, and include our new knowledge based on UV studies within the definition:

Currently accepted definition: The blue mutation prevents the production of all psitticin pigments in the cortex or outer layer.
Revised definition: The blue mutation prevents the production of all psitticin pigments that occurs naturally within the wildtype in the cortex or outer layer, but it may exclude the interaction with any psittacin types that result as a cause of mutation.

So Willy, that's how a homozygous blue bird could show mutated psittacin, but never naturally occurring fluorescent and non-fluorescent psittacin in the species. Ironically, that means that both you and Recio are right.

fionalouise1989 · Post by **fionalouise1989** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:30 am

Fellas this has made very interesting reading for my nightshift. Although way over my head as Im only a newbie. I admire your passion and think this is why it gets heated. I hope none of you "leave" (Willy) as your insight and work will be missed. Just remember hypothesises can be proved right or wrong thats what you research for to prove it either way

Regards Fi

Recio · Post by **Recio** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:41 pm

Hi Johan and Lee,

You are fine diplomates, lol, lol, ... Let's wait for results ... as ever ....

Regards

Recio

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:33 pm

These are the possible pairings in either 'Green or Blue series' heterozygous Emeralds paired to Blue birds with missing phenotypes underlined.

If what we know as heterozygous Emeralds are Green series SF Emerald Green birds we have these possible pairings:

1. SF Emerald Green /Blue x Blue:

SF Emerald Blue
SF Emerald Green /Blue
Blue
Green /Blue

2. SF Emerald Green x Blue

SF Emerald Green /Blue
Green /Blue

If what we know as heterozygous Emeralds are Blue series SF Emerald Blue birds:

3. SF Emerald Blue x Blue:

SF Emerald Blue
Blue

Pairing 3. has no missing birds and if we substitute SF Emerald Blue for EmeraldBlue:

EmeraldBlue x Blue:

EmeraldBlue
Blue

This is what we are seeing so how can our heterozygous Emeralds be Green series AND dominant with a missing different Emerald phenotype in breedings which have to have occured? I repeat, Babu has reported no other Emerald phenotypes on the way from the initially bred birds which could only have been SF Emerald Green /Blue if dominant or EmeraldBlue if recessive and allelic with Blue. If we accept the original breedings occurring as fact we have to all agree with this underlined fact. Recio however argues that the original theorized SF Emerald Greens have somehow all disappeared and been replaced by SF Emerald Blues and thus the breeding outcomes we have observed fit his theory. Surely a SF Emerald Green will be a different phenotype from a SF Emerald Blue and this difference noted long ago? If we assume that Babu purchased some of these first bred birds then bred at least one to a Blue that pairing would have fit breeding 1 if dominant yet he did not report more than one Emerald phenotype even though 25% of the young of this and subsequent breedings of that pair should have been a 2nd Emerald phenotype, SF Emerald Blue. Recio claims that that all we have now is this 2nd Emerald phenotype which quite handily fits the outcomes we see because paired to a Blue the inheritance is dominant in either case.

One of you has said they have talked to Babu, did he mention a second Emerald phenotype appearing to date from pairing the original progeny to Blue? Why not call him again and confirm?

Let's wait for results ... as ever ....

If there have been no other heterozygous Emerald phenotypes reported, surely logic would eliminate dominance in Emerald and confirm parblue because of the missing phenotypes in the hundreds of breedings so far? The results are already in but the resulting facts are being ignored. If it can be proved (ask Babu) that the heterozygous Emeralds we have are still the same birds that were initially bred and acquired by Babu then Emerald is recessive and allelic to Blue.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:16 pm

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.

trabots · Post by **trabots** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:19 pm

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

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:26 pm

trabots wrote:This is what we are seeing so how can our heterozygous Emeralds be Green series AND dominant with a missing different Emerald phenotype in breedings which have to have occured?

Because I believe they aren't green series to begin with. The Oz birds are blue series emeralds, thus emerald blue or EmeraldBlue. It doesn't matter which one right now until we know the outcome of wildtype x emerald (blue). And your interpretation of the breeding results to the blue series as in point 3 is correct in my opinion. And expected, as emerald (blue) has only ever been bred to blue series birds. However, if it was believed that your birds were green series, why would the question of wildtype x emerald (blue) feature so often??? Then the experiment of wildtype x emerald (blue) would, put simply (and to quote somebody on this forum), "be illogical" since the green emerald already exists.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:39 pm

trabots wrote: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.

No, I believe that the homozygous Emerald bird was rather an homozygous Emerald Blue. A double mutant. And I believe the true origin as of yet is undisclosed.

trabots wrote:I feel that this will take a multi stage process. Using the breedings with Blue that I have just outlined, please ponder this:
Premise 2: the young of this first breeding were all either SF Emerald Green /Blue OR EmeraldBlue. (the ONLY 2 possibilities)

The young of the first bird (and supsequently all others there after) were Emerald Blue or EmeraldBlue (to be determined by wildtype x Emerald Blue or EmeraldBlue)

Let's work with this before tackling the rest. Like you say, KISS. This is the simplest and to me the most logical explanation. My personal believe, and it may be wrong. But simple.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:46 pm

Willy,

Very good outline.

My mind keeps jumping to Premise 1:
I do not know the story of the df emerald being caught.
but if we get this wrong then everything else is wrong !

I must ask: how can we be sure that the bird was wild? bred in the wild
and even in the wild could have the blue gene from an escaped bird or other means.
I have caught many escaped ringnecks from other bird keepers aviaries or let go by them and Ringnecks are not a native species so for us it is easy to identify the bird as being escaped.
In a country where they are native species they evidently will join a flock and breed passing on the genes acquired such as blue.
3-5 generations down they could still be split blue etc..

Willy about the green hen i emailed you about , My friend caught the Green hen that is not split for blue, about 5 years ago.
if ringnecks would be a native bird here we could have assumed the bird wild, not even sure if it has a leg ring pretty sure it does not.

PS. Johan just read your post, we must have typed it at the same time, and similar thoughts.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:09 pm

Molossus

at least it shows that we are all looking in the same direction.

Now.

So, can anyone answer this? i can see previous post was totally ignored, perhpas because i'm dead wrong (then i want to know about it) or non of you guys are sure, you should also say s-thing either way.
I use this forum to try and learn something and hundreds of other people reading it would like to take home something.

Let's talk Homozygous Parblue

Most of us already know however Willy has explained it pretty well here in this post:
http://www.indianringneck.com/forum/vie ... ous#p87546

and i quote:

One key thing to remember with Parblues if they are homozygous or df then there can be no room left for the Blue allele. A df Turquoise or df Emerald is not even split for Blue or any other allele for the Blue locus. Such a bird bred to a Green series would produce 100% heterozygous or Greens split for Parblue.

So, can someone explain why my proposed test breed DF Turq X Emerald Blue would not give us any useful data?

or DF Turq. X Indigoblue ?
or i should say any: DF Parblue X Parblue Blue
What do you think the offspring would be?

Consider the DF Turq. as the wildtype (no blue allele) if you were to use another Turq.blue you'd get Homo. Turq
offspring as well as Turq.blue.

This pairing i hope has already been done here in OZ, perhaps elsewhere as well. so we could have something to work with for the next few months.

I really want your opinions on this.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:22 pm

Hi Ben,

the testing will provide useful data, but data I believe to be secondary. It will show us how emerald behaves with the naturally occurring psittacins. However, test to "DF" blue, "DF" turquoise or "DF" indigo will always give the same information, i.e. how the emerald mutation interacts with the blue locus/mutation. Like Willy said, there is no room left for blue when you have DF turquoise or indigo, i.e. it is the same region in the DNA that is tested. What we need is to restore that region to the original wildtype, thus testing how emerald behaves when the blue locus is restored and without influence to our result. The psittacins interaction will also be seen with the green series bird, thus two flies with one stone.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Johan,

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