The things that make you go hmmm

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:44 pm

download and zoom in, saddle/wing area
just started going through its 6m moult

http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/g.jpg

madas · Post by **madas** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:59 am

parents?

Mauve Violett or Violett(df)darkblue with Turq?

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:45 am

I just did a visual inspection (did not catch the bird) and with naked eye & i can not see the "mauve" on its back/wings. it is now late afternoon before dark, no sunlight.
So this bird pictured from what i can tell is a Grey Turquoise masking any of/or all DDV mutations.

Parents: Grey Pied male X Turquoise + possibly all 3 structural mutations (DDV) hen

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:51 am

Pair had 4 young
2 Grey? Turquoise (i only have the 1 pictured left)
1 Grey? Turq. Pied
1 TurquoiseBlue carrying 2 or 3 structural mutations (not sure yet)

having 3/4 grey, I obviously suspected the male to be masking Dark, but the grey young did not show signs of mauve prior to today.
Talked to Ron : Aquired him from Ron and it was bred from a Grey Pied from Chris W. and he said, no Cobalt as far as he knows, it was possibly split CT" He said.

Another pic
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/P2069662.JPG

madas · Post by **madas** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:24 am

So it's a sibling of the grey pied with the orange pied markings???
Any news reagarding this bird?

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:45 am

Sibling pied pic below taken today.
not the best quality pics as i took random pics did not aim to take pics of him

front view
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/P2069530.JPG

madas · Post by **madas** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:47 am

Ring0Neck wrote:Sibling pied pic below taken today.
not the best quality pics as i took random pics did not aim to take pics of him

front view
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/P2069530.JPG

Hm for my eyes the prove "saddleback" is nothing more then a Dom. pied x turq. Your thoughts?

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:05 am

I hope to answer this Q with pics of saddlebacks next to this bird i have very soon.
I will detail what i've found out re saddlebacks once the above happends.

This bird is close very close to saddlebacks but don't think it is the same.
Mine is like a Misty, changes color at the slightest change of lighting.

IMO No. there is s-thing else.
That something else i have a good idea/s what it is but i better wait to inspect saddlebacks closeup and sum it all up.
After that i will say what my opinion is on SBs.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:19 am

Look at this related young
check out the head color, rainbow

http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/P2069518.JPG

I've noticed on overcast days pics come out best, no interference from sunlight

madas · Post by **madas** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:42 am

Ring0Neck wrote:Look at this related young
check out the head color, rainbow

http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/P2069518.JPG

I've noticed on overcast days pics come out best, no interference from sunlight

Nice bird but the yellow of ht ebird in the background is more impressive.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:00 am

madas wrote:Hm for my eyes the prove "saddleback" is nothing more then a Dom. pied x turq. Your thoughts?

Madas, I think most will agree that it is a dom. pied x parblue, but some will say it is not turq. I think in future there will be a push to de-classify this type of 'saddled' parblue and call it something other than turq, just like the case for indigo. So we will sit with a large variety of different morphotypes, each with a different name. In the end it will probably matter very little to most breeders, at least in SA. Here most don't know or care about indigo either.

madas · Post by **madas** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:09 am

molossus wrote:What I do not approve of is that there are some really greedy breeders out there. they seem to think they have the copyright to the title saddleback,,,thereby making their birds exclusively saddleback and thus more valuable than anyone else with birds that have a pronounced saddle.
respectfully that is a whole lot of bulls@#t.
What the eye sees cannot be denied. if anyone breeds an outstanding parblue saddleback.,,, its their right to call it by its standard description,,,parblue or not.
the better saddled bird should command a better price. its simple and there isnt a pearl hidden in its internal organs. call it as you see and let good sense prevail.
btw,Ringo thats as good a saddleback as I have ever seen.

Well said.

Now lets wait two or three years and see if Ringo can get any parblue offspring from this bird. Pretty sure he will. So thats the last step to disprove the "saddleback" magic.

greetings.

madas

madas · Post by **madas** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:47 am

thx for the infos. Keep us updated.

molossus wrote: I am monitoring their coloring.

Hopefully with pics. ;)

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 am

madas wrote:thx for the infos. Keep us updated.

molossus wrote: I am monitoring their coloring.
Hopefully with pics. ;)

Madas, you are asking the wrong person. That man can not take pictures to save his life. I passed him the camera while distracting a bird as he had a better angle for the picture. What does he do? He takes pictures of the wire mesh!

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:29 am

At first i thought he does not want to show us the birds in detail , 4give me Molossus.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:17 am

But you have copies of the pictures too...

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:16 am

madas wrote:
molossus wrote:What I do not approve of is that there are some really greedy breeders out there. they seem to think they have the copyright to the title saddleback,,,thereby making their birds exclusively saddleback and thus more valuable than anyone else with birds that have a pronounced saddle.
respectfully that is a whole lot of bulls@#t.
What the eye sees cannot be denied. if anyone breeds an outstanding parblue saddleback.,,, its their right to call it by its standard description,,,parblue or not.
the better saddled bird should command a better price. its simple and there isnt a pearl hidden in its internal organs. call it as you see and let good sense prevail.
btw,Ringo thats as good a saddleback as I have ever seen.
Well said.

Now lets wait two or three years and see if Ringo can get any parblue offspring from this bird. Pretty sure he will. So thats the last step to disprove the "saddleback" magic.

greetings.

madas

Ok

I used to think the same,
One can not say "My Indigo is an Emerald because it looks like it"
I always say (re emeralds): If you think you have one, You don't, becuase when you have 1 you'll know !

If it is different then we should classify it as such,
I agree that there's extremely nice Turquoise Pieds with nice saddle, however as we can see in the pic they are not the same.

My saddlebacks arrived home today have a look and we can clearly see my pied although interesting saddle it is not the same as
the Saddlebacks

Saddleback Pied left - Turquoise+ Pied right. (both from last season)
more pics higher definition to follow

Anthony anth Mc Geer · Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:36 am

cant wait to see more pictures interesting Turq pied tough, but saddleback looks great

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:50 am

Thanks Ben, looking forward to the next pics. Should be interesting!

To be honest, it will take some convincing to change my mind on them, but I'll give it an open mind. However, I maintain that parblue expression is highly dependent on the hormone concentration present in the bird during the moult. If one bird is slightly further/better developed than another, it will show a more progressed psittacin expression; and at the 15 month moult also a richer yellow psittacin (fluorescent). And this can be for genetically identical birds, i.e. it is a factor (also) influenced environmentally (different feeding programs, aviary setups, your 'alpha chick' idea, etc.).

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 12:59 am

perhaps there is not as much difference as that pic portrays but clear difference for now.
I will also have to take into account the structural mutations in each bird as that would alter the phenotype slightly.
will add more pics later,
problem with my turq-pied is that it changes color dramatically in certain lighting cond. i would not be surprised if misty is playing a role there.

Johan
I will not say anything what a saddleback is or isn't , instead i'm up for suggestions, pics tests UV tests, more than anything else i hope that we'll get to the bottom of the "saddle" soon. One thing i say, i'm impressed with its phenotype (acting casual)

I would also like breeders with saddleback to say their opinion on my new birds.

*** 1 of my

re saddlebacks: It is all in the pied, bloodline dictates saddleback phenotype.
can be seen in green pied birds. more on that later.

madas · Post by **madas** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:17 am

Ring0Neck wrote:
madas wrote:
molossus wrote:What I do not approve of is that there are some really greedy breeders out there. they seem to think they have the copyright to the title saddleback,,,thereby making their birds exclusively saddleback and thus more valuable than anyone else with birds that have a pronounced saddle.
respectfully that is a whole lot of bulls@#t.
What the eye sees cannot be denied. if anyone breeds an outstanding parblue saddleback.,,, its their right to call it by its standard description,,,parblue or not.
the better saddled bird should command a better price. its simple and there isnt a pearl hidden in its internal organs. call it as you see and let good sense prevail.
btw,Ringo thats as good a saddleback as I have ever seen.
Well said.

Now lets wait two or three years and see if Ringo can get any parblue offspring from this bird. Pretty sure he will. So thats the last step to disprove the "saddleback" magic.

greetings.

madas
Ok

I used to think the same,
One can not say "My Indigo is an Emerald because it looks like it"
I always say (re emeralds): If you think you have one, You don't, becuase when you have 1 you'll know !

If it is different then we should classify it as such,
I agree that there's extremely nice Turquoise Pieds with nice saddle, however as we can see in the pic they are not the same.

My saddlebacks arrived home today have a look and we can clearly see my pied although interesting saddle it is not the same as
the Saddlebacks

Saddleback Pied left - Turquoise+ Pied right. (both from last season)
more pics higher definition to follow

Hm, so you are telling us that the bird on the right is the same as in the pics some posts above???

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:41 am

Well, this makes me go hmmm...

But is it a 'saddleback' too...

Anthony anth Mc Geer · Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:50 am

No that doesn't look like Saddleback.

madas · Post by **madas** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:01 am

Johan S wrote:Well, this makes me go hmmm...

But is it a 'saddleback' too...

Not a saddleback in the meaning of the pied birds Mr. Whips or Babu are referring to. But it's the "saddle" type parblue we usually have here in Europe.

madas

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:59 am

madas wrote:Not a saddleback in the meaning of the pied birds Mr. Whips or Babu are referring to. But it's the "saddle" type parblue we usually have here in Europe.

madas

Hmmmm... Pieds... This one has psittacin in the saddle too.

Coincidentally, here we refer to these as 'clearflights'. An(other?) example of how different morphs end up with different names.

You all might remember this morph, the 'clearbody' or 'reverse pied' (as called by budgerigar folk) from 2012. Yet, they are all pieds.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with distinguishing names for different morphs, but I'd be furious if somebody sells me a pied morph as something different than and unique compared to adm pied, and it then turns out to be merely a different pied morph when tested with a known adm pied.

sheyd · Post by **sheyd** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:51 am

very nice Johan--

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:55 am

Madas,

Yes that was same bird, she didn't come out too nice in that pic. will get more pics up soon.
I said after i looked again at the pic i posted "perhaps there is not as much difference as that pic portrays but clear difference for now." been very busy i just thought i throw a pic up.

Johan,

If you read my above post i said exactly same thing;i suspect the type of pieds used that gives us the saddlebacks.

i also got a blue pied hen for this sole reason: to test breed, as i will put her to a parblue to test if we're going to get saddleback phenotypes.

Previous bird is the hen
below the male, both carry violet

These birds do not come from Chris or Phil.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:22 am

Ring0Neck wrote:
Johan,

If you read my above post i said exactly same thing;i suspect the type of pieds used that gives us the saddlebacks.

i also got a blue pied hen for this sole reason: to test breed, as i will put her to a parblue to test if we're going to get saddleback phenotypes.

Looking forward to your results, Ben. I share your thoughts on the type of pied. Although, I think we might generalise this even further, and could be looking at a series of modifier genes. If we can move away from a single gene controlling blue/parblue, then we could more easily wrap our heads around the variability in parblues. Example: Say there are modifier/minor genes that govern the expression of parblues, and even a blue bird can carry these, although completely recessive when no psittacin is produced. Then, the offspring from a parblue to this blue bird could produce a different parblue phenotype from the parblue parent when it inherits these modifier genes from the blue parent (ignore same/different chromosome and crossing over for now). So it could very well be that the dom. pied bloodline introduced a rare minor gene associated with the major gene of the blue locus. Just a thought.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:33 am

Johan,

A good possibility.
The type of pieds/bloodline these birds come from match the name Clearwings. hence the belief that Baldwin had clearwings sold to Chris, i think he believed it to be so. (just my thoughts)

Chris if you reading this please feel free to jump in.

All i got to say, at the end of the day, whatever this is ... its a beaut in my books, definetly a line i'll keep.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:54 am

Madas,
Another pic of my turquoise pied. pic i have taken today.
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P2089775.jpg
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P2089774.jpg
if i take 5 pics of this bird moving around it'll always change phenotype as if we're looking at 5 diff. birds.
that's why i keep saying Misty, not that i want it to be. might not be genetically , it is for me

she looks nice; the yellow is rather random on the back but very pronounced, time will tell how far that will expand.
Don't forget the mother is (pic of my avatar) Homozygous Turquoise more likely a Homoallelic Parblue (covering almost completely the body)

A close up of the male

&
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P2089815.jpg

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 11:44 pm

My thoughts (not facts) on saddlebacks:

Saddlebacks start with a pied type such as the bright green & blue harlequins from this pic
https://picasaweb.google.com/MCWaviarie ... 9765188898

Then you need some sort of Parblue that affects the whole of the bird's body, but thus far records show no visual parblue bred from saddlebacks.
Why not??

Given the above info we have to revert our attention back to the green n blue birds above.
One can see an increase of a diff. stronger yellow in the green bird, normal sf green pieds are greener with softer yellow & more lacey.

PS: Johan, on my list is even the PR Modifier as a contributing factor, as well as Blue2 (recessive to B1 & wildtype), as silly as it may sound.
Where is Recio when we need him?

Thoughts?

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:36 am

Could this be the Parblue we are looking for?
(related to my turquoiseblue pied)
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P2069473.JPG
it has a diff type green saddle, somewhat similar to what Johan was showing earlier.

& Is this the pied?
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P20089761.jpg

----
I've done the Hue 155/Sat 100 system for the male and it blew me away. never seen this result before.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:55 pm

Molossus,

Regarding your other thread on saddlebacks.
we as breeders should be concentrating in understanding the genotype of saddleback rather then worry about value.

I know a breeder has a very nice Turquoise Violet CT male , a while back another breeder offered him $10k and he refused.
Point is: nicer phenotype ultimately drives demand up, our job is to figure out genotype so we can breed more of the same.

**** I have a theory (i think i found a clue) that i'm working on in silence as i have brainstormed outloud enough

(no one seems to want to help anyhow) and hope it unveils the genotype of saddleback, just need some time to work on it so i can present it with examples etc etc .

madas · Post by **madas** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:00 am

Ring0Neck wrote: no one seems to want to help anyhow

For sure i want to help. But we haven't these birds (dom. pieds) here in Germany.

So i can't. Sorry.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:52 am

Ben, I'd like to help too, but my feeling is that the saddleback is a parblue harlequin. And Chris is saying the same thing on his site. Granted, at some places he says you won't breed normal parblues=turquoise out of a saddleback (or at least they never have), and in other places he says it is a parblue, but not turquoise. He also says that the name isn't the correct one. So I don't know what I can really add after that, seeing as I agree with what he is saying. 1) It is probably a parblue phenomenon, and 2) the name is incorrect.

Carr.birds · Post by **Carr.birds** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:18 pm

Ben

I am prepared to help you. You can use my private email for suggestions to setup a pair.

Tienie

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:41 pm

Thanks guys.
Can we eliminate Opaline for sure?

Every saddleback owner has opalines!
Ok, non were bred from saddlebacks but there might be one of the other SL mutation in saddlebacks gen. makeup? perhaps even the harlequin itself??
Anything that does not make sense is an unsolved clue

Harlequin does resemble SL mutations: edged, opaline... so it'll be no surprise if this is the case.

Tienie,
Priority i think is to pair 2 saddlebacks together (or an odd looking offspring from SB) and see what we get, 100% saddlebacks with/without pied? df?
Madas, what do you suggest?, keeping in mind the poss. chance of SL, SL dom? being involved.

Johan,
see pic below, not the best pic but the point is made
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P2089821.JPG

madas · Post by **madas** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:34 am

Ring0Neck wrote: Can we eliminate Opaline for sure? Every saddleback owner has opalines!

Not for sure.

Ring0Neck wrote: Ok, non were bred from saddlebacks but there might be one of the other SL mutation in saddlebacks gen. makeup? perhaps even the harlequin itself??
Anything that does not make sense is an unsolved clue. Harlequin does resemble SL mutations: edged, opaline... so it'll be no surprise if this is the case.

I think we can exclude "harlequin" from sex-linked mutations because Tienie got "harlequins" of same phenotype for both sexes from a pair 1,0 non-Harlequin to 0,1 harlequin.

Ring0Neck wrote: Tienie, Priority i think is to pair 2 saddlebacks together (or an odd looking offspring from SB) and see what we get, 100% saddlebacks with/without pied? df?
Madas, what do you suggest?, keeping in mind the poss. chance of SL, SL dom? being involved.

Yeah very good idea. So if "saddleback" is a "new" parblue of a "second blue locus" then we should be able to produce a non pied "new parblue" which then could be used to test against the "normal" blue. Your thoughts Tienie?

regards

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:56 am

Ring0Neck wrote: Ok, non were bred from saddlebacks but there might be one of the other SL mutation in saddlebacks gen. makeup? perhaps even the harlequin itself??
Anything that does not make sense is an unsolved clue. Harlequin does resemble SL mutations: edged, opaline... so it'll be no surprise if this is the case.
I think we can exclude "harlequin" from sex-linked mutations because Tienie got "harlequins" of same phenotype for both sexes from a pair 1,0 non-Harlequin to 0,1 harlequin.

True, i didn't mean Harlequin to presently be SL.
my thinking was harlequin could have been made through a "bond/mistake" from sl/dom mutations therefore could still be allelic/interacting unexpectedly in some sort of way to SL mutations.... (just thinking outloud - an illogical approach).

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:03 am

madas wrote: Yeah very good idea. So if "saddleback" is a "new" parblue of a "second blue locus" then we should be able to produce a non pied "new parblue" which then could be used to test against the "normal" blue. Your thoughts Tienie?

regards

Madas, in all likelihood, if it is a new parblue, it will be from the original, first blue locus (different parblue alleles are already known to exist at the locus, so why not one more). Blue2 is also an allele of Blue1 (in budgerigar), and not a second blue locus. Is there any reason at this stage to think we are dealing with different locii rather than different alleles? I think we have had this same discussion some weeks back.

Lushen1600 · Post by **Lushen1600** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:21 am

A parblue that I bred in 2013 breeding season from 2 green parents, also getting a saddleback pattern

Thanks
Lushen

madas · Post by **madas** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:43 am

Johan S wrote:
madas wrote: Yeah very good idea. So if "saddleback" is a "new" parblue of a "second blue locus" then we should be able to produce a non pied "new parblue" which then could be used to test against the "normal" blue. Your thoughts Tienie?

regards
Madas, in all likelihood, if it is a new parblue, it will be from the original, first blue locus (different parblue alleles are already known to exist at the locus, so why not one more). Blue2 is also an allele of Blue1 (in budgerigar), and not a second blue locus. Is there any reason at this stage to think we are dealing with different locii rather than different alleles? I think we have had this same discussion some weeks back.

Yeah because the "saddleback" breeders are still saying they can't breed a "normal" parblue bird out of their "saddlebacks". But if this funny "mutation" is a parblue then they already should have produced such a "normal" parblue bird. That's all.

So no "normal" parblue and saying it's a parblue is in conflict and could only be explained by a second "new" blue locus.

If i am not wrong then you will get a (par?)blue looking bird if you combine B1 and B2 in Budgies. But for the "saddleback" IRNs this isn't the case according to the "saddleback" breeders. So somebody isn't telling the whole truth.

btw: they always showing nests with "harlequins" and "saddlebacks" but no normal bird. For an dom. mutation it is a little bit too dominat. ;)

regards

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:52 am

Hi Lushen,

Nice birds,

We need to ignore the name as it takes our thinking to saddle.
These birds rearranges the color in a magnificent way, pleasing to the eye.
Most Turquoise Pieds have the saddle, but these birds only have saddle for the first year then it completely covers the bird.

*** Have a look at the start of this thread, pics of my Turq-Pied although i believe it is Turquoise + the mutation we're chasing;
if so, second mutation can not be Parblue since Both mutations were passed on from mother only.

From same bloodline there's 2 type of turquoise i bred, the second type (pics below) is the mutation i think we're seeking.
All i need to do is pair it to a blue pied and offspring should be saddlebacks and no Turquoise & i would not be surprised to see violet
Pics of same bird, taken with camera in two modes, auto and some other it reveals its features a bit better
I can say that this bird is completely covered smoothly by the SF Parblue? and has a saddle and emerald like appearance.

its mother based on last 2012 breeding results and violet parents was assumed DF Violet
http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P2069476.JPG

btw: they always showing nests with "harlequins" and "saddlebacks" but no normal bird. For an dom. mutation it is a little bit too dominat.

Madas

If 1 Parblue is visual only in Blue2/Blue2 and the other say in Blue2/Blue1 as well as B1/B1 perhaps it would make sense why no parblues were bred since pairing to B1 the B2/B2 would be receessive to all offspring.
BUT visual in Harlequins - WHY? Because a Harleq. would be at Blue2/Blue2? therefore the other parblue would be visual.

not even sure it makes sense... brainstorming

madas · Post by **madas** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:37 am

Ring0Neck wrote: BUT visual in Harlequins - WHY? Because a Harleq. would be at Blue2/Blue2? therefore the other parblue would be visual.

not even sure it makes sense... brainstorming

Could be true. That's why i said your idea to pair two "saddleback" together makes sence in my eyes.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:55 am

Ring0Neck wrote:Most Turquoise Pieds have the saddle, but these birds only have saddle for the first year then it completely covers the bird.

Ben, isn't this also true for mature saddlebacks? I thought the saddle is lost at maturity. At least, it looks that way from the pictures. So in that regard it doesn't appear as if they differ from mature turquoise harlequin. Or do they and I'm missing something? Could this be a juvenile type mutation, lost at maturity?

madas · Post by **madas** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:01 am

Johan S wrote:
Ring0Neck wrote:Most Turquoise Pieds have the saddle, but these birds only have saddle for the first year then it completely covers the bird.
Ben, isn't this also true for mature saddlebacks? I thought the saddle is lost at maturity. At least, it looks that way from the pictures. So in that regard it doesn't appear as if they differ from mature turquoise harlequin. Or do they and I'm missing something? Could this be a juvenile type mutation, lost at maturity?

Yeah this is my observation too. And to add some more: For non-structual "saddlebacks" the saddle is more green looking. But if you add violet for example it turns into a more yellow one.

Edit: from my observations of available pics in the www.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:30 am

But if you add violet for example it turns into a more yellow one.

Sounds exciting: if Violet in "B2" is yellow i'm thinking: Red IRN; in hope that the B1 limitations are not there anymore

Sidenote:
I keep saying to everyone: I'm hopefull that White n Yellow birds gives us a new pallett of colors to work with & a new background canvas, yet we are still scared as it resembles the INO.
Time will tell.

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:15 am

this pic i just found taken 6 days ago captured s-thing rather interesting.
same bird as in previous post
i guess because of this color changing layer i consider these birds being Misty_rious

http://parakeet.me/irn/m/em/d/s/P2069482.JPG

Ring0Neck · Post by **Ring0Neck** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:34 am

Have a good look at this bird and tell us what you think it is

Your opinion is appreciated !

Do you see Harlequin or Harlequin-Opaline?
(PS not a clearwing)

I am currently stuck on opaline-harlequin combo (and its variable phenotype), the deeper i dig, the more confusing it becomes

Could Harlequin be SL Dom.?
or perhaps we have 2 types, one being SL D. and the other Dominant.
We all can certainly see 2 types of Harlequins floating about and easily distinguishable from one another.
I have both types now and will watch hen's results if they breed hens also.

Johan S · Post by **Johan S** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:29 pm

Ben, that bird shows a rather wide red region in the neck ring. I can be convinced that it carries opaline. It would be something though, considering that opaline cocks are actually rather challenging to breed and even /opaline x opaline produces only 1/4. And that's your best chance and possible pairing without having an opaline cock. But, it can happen. Your other thought on dom edge vs SL dom edge. Not that far fetched at all. Both kinds exist in different species, so it is possible. Being the same as harlequin... That will surprise me a lot. I bet in the next 5 - 10 years we will have at least 5 very distinct harlequin morphotypes resulting from selective breeding programs.