New Mutations

[Ring0Neck]

Interesting points made by Deon in his latest book in relation to new mutations coming from wild caught birds.
Emerlad, Opaline, Harlequin; these new mutations are of such huge significance to our breeding programs.
The Question i have is simple:

Why all these exciting new mutations come from wild flocks?

My most logical answer is also simple: Ringnecks as a specie have to ability to mutate & will mutate, why mutate? it's diversification, just one would have in his investment portfolio, to make sure of it's species survival, to be adaptable to changes in their enviroment, to secure their species future.


I think that a mutated bird even to a simple color like blue has no need to mutate since it is already mutated, so the chances of getting new natural mutations in our cages are sadly very slim.
It is almost like: the mutating job is for the wildtype as with everything else there can be exception to the rule and mutated birds could bring on very rare occasions a new mutation & genetical mistakes?!.

If this hypothesis is true...
The way todays breeders are setup hitting a few mutations in each bird... the trend is NOT going to change.

Surely we can do better then wild flocks, even if each breeder had only 1 pair of green (wildtype) breeding continuosly & surely we can do better in discovering new mutations at a faster rate then in the wild even with this simple principle and minimal interuption to our breeding program. Breeders being all over the world in diff. climate conditions will again give us an edge in new findings becuase the wildtype will naturally adapt/make changes as changes were made to their environment.


Are we working towards finding new mutations?

PS It amazes me how mutations are like a maze if looked at it as a whole, in such way that deployment of a new mutation can be rapid and vice versa, as nature sees best fit/God's order.

83IV

[Recio]

Hi,

Recessive mutations are more likely to phenotypically appear in captivity or in isolated flocks (ex: in islands) since the degree of consanguinity is higher. Dominant mutations rate, as a rule, should be the same in captivity than in nature. Since the number of birds is higher in nature, dominant mutations should be expected to appear more likely in nature than in our aviaries.

Regards

Recio

[Johan S]

Another thing about this topic that I have been thinking about often is this: If we see the "same" mutation in various species of parrots (take blue, ino, etc.), it should mean that this mutation should have occurred a very long time ago in a common ancestor. And as this ancestor mutated into different species, this mutation (blue) should have been inherited and be fairly common in the flocks that eventually formed the different species. If this is indeed the case, I really doubt that we will see spontaneous mutations occurring as often as new mutations are identified, but rather that we will see two heterozygous birds "spontaneously" pairing up. Considering we see the blue mutation in birds native to India, Australia, Africa, South America, etc., to my mind this mutation has been around for a very very very very very long time.

[Ring0Neck]

been around for a very very very very very long time

U forgot one "very"

[Johan S]

been around for a very very very very very long time

U forgot one "very"

Yep, guilty as charged!

Johan you are right. So is Recio. Which is why I said that we should start seeing so called newer mutations emerging in our aviaries. This is because of the chances of common /birds coming together in movement of stock from keeper to keeper. At some point and more often than in the wild this will start to happen.
May it be in your aviaries that the melanistic mutation emerges. I know for sure you will let me have one for my birthday.

And you are also right about increasing the odds of breeding recessive mutations in captivity. We have never had a melanistic mutation emerge in our aviaries. However, we have had the same psittacin related mutation emerge in two different species in the 90s. That was amazing.