IndianRingNeck.com

Mikesringnecks wrote: with the chick showing more florescence, then we have visual confirmation that they are a split emerald parent and an EmeraldBlue chick, thereby confirming your initial proposition.

Recio wrote:You are 100% rigth.

Hi Mike and Recio, unless I'm missing something, I don't think I agree with that. If the parent is a green SF emerald, it will show the fluorescence of the emerald mutation and possibly also the fluorescence of the patched psittacin (unless it is masked by emerald). The fledgling will show the fluorescence of the emerald mutation as well. If the parent is a green / emerald, it will mostly likely show the fluorescence of the patched psittacin, and the green / emerald chick will show no fluorescence. In either case, the best possible outcome is the chick will show the same fluorescence (emerald as an incomplete dominant mutation) as the parent, or less (emerald as a recessive parblue), but not more.

Hi Johan
It does get a bit complicated because the genetic makeup of parent and chick seem to change over time. However, my current understanding is that the parent is Violet Green and carries an emerald gene either split or single factor and the chick is Violet EmeraldBlue or Violet Blue sf emerald.
If the chick is EmeraldBlue I assume it will show emerald type florescence under UV light, whist the split parent will show lower level florescence from its non florescent yellow pigment. If they are both sf emeralds, I am assuming their UV signatures would be similar.
However, it is probably now all pointless as Ben doesn't seem to want to pursue the matter. I would have thought that even a visual observation of the pair under UV illumination would be useful without the need for photography.
Kind regards
Mike

Hi Johan,

That is what I was understanding from Mike's words. Maybe we understood different birds when speaking about the chick (suppossed split Emerald or his son showing Emerald)

Recio

Mikesringnecks wrote:If the chick is EmeraldBlue I assume it will show emerald type florescence under UV light, whist the split parent will show lower level florescence from its non florescent yellow pigment.

Ah, I'm with you again. My bad. For Aaron's experiment, my interest is mostly with the green offspring (green emerald / blue or green / emerald). I always forget about the blue/parblue offspring, probably because I think they don't contribute anything new to the puzzle.

G,Day Mike , As you can see on my web site , the use of UV light will give you a real good insight to what your dealing with , why not drop overand borrow my gear??

Hi Chris
Will do, thanks a lot
Kind regards
Mike

Some comparing pics of two emeraldblue tail to two blue tail feathers (pics made by Willy):





So who is able to pick the emerald feathers?

madas

Great pics (thanks Willy) and Madas

I've no experience with Emerald, and I'm basing my guess off of the 2 bluest
Whilst looking on my phone- but will guess the middle 2 are Emerald, because they appear greener..
?

Hi Madas,

Could you tell Willy to take the pics under natural sun ligth? .... just to see how the apparent hue depends on ligth spectrum and iridescence.

Recio

madas wrote:So who is able to pick the emerald feathers?

madas

Not me, no psittacin there...

Johan S wrote:

madas wrote:So who is able to pick the emerald feathers?

madas

Not me, no psittacin there...

Yeah and that's the strange thing.

Madas, so which ones are the emerald tail feathers? Time to reveal the mystery.

Johan S wrote:Madas, so which ones are the emerald tail feathers? Time to reveal the mystery.

According to Willy the two left feathers are the emerald. Under UV they show a slight fluorescence but not as much as on the body compared to Deons pics.

madas

Ring0Neck wrote:I too think the 2 in the middle are emerald as Shey said.
The blue has darker colored the right side of the feather, barely visible (or i'm seeing things ) .

I think the idea of the feather example is to show the emerald is at the blue locus we know.

For breeders that have Indigo, Emerald is not that special anymore, close phenotype to Indigo esp. when young in the nest, it is however when you compare mature Emerald V Turq.

Emerald = line breeded Indigo to eliminate the patchiness???

Has anyone bred these colours to show a comparison, emerald cobalt, emerald SF violet, emerald cobalt SF violet ? or is that being to adventurous yet. (I know Mike has in cleartail.)

Madas maybe now fancy that .

Ring0Neck wrote:I think the idea of the feather example is to show the emerald is at the blue locus we know.

Ben, I don't think that is a very relevant comparison. I could take feathers of SLino and NSLino that look identical and show that we are dealing with different locii too.

madas wrote:

Johan S wrote:Madas, so which ones are the emerald tail feathers? Time to reveal the mystery.

According to Willy the two left feathers are the emerald. Under UV they show a slight fluorescence but not as much as on the body compared to Deons pics.

madas

I was sure about the feather second on the left, but not about the one on the left and the one second to right. On different PC screens I would alter between these two.

Is there anybody that uses the main tail feather to identify emerald? I usually look for other identifiers.

madas wrote:

Johan S wrote:Madas, so which ones are the emerald tail feathers? Time to reveal the mystery.

According to Willy the two left feathers are the emerald. Under UV they show a slight fluorescence but not as much as on the body compared to Deons pics.

madas

Hi Madas,

In that pic we can not see either the yellow colour or the iridescence in the tail feathers. Should we conclude that yellowness is coupled to iridescence? The difference between both mutations is only visible (for those feathers) under uv .... would this difference also be visible under natural sun ligth? Could sun ligth make appear the "yellowness" and the iridescence, or only one of them, or none at all? If both were present it would point to an structural yellow rather than a pigmentary yellow.

Regards

Recio

EMEROLD= LINE BREED INDIGO TO ELEMINATE PATCHINESS . ???
This statement is just so WRONG in so many ways. It doesnt matter how many times you Line Breed or In-Breed you will NEVER produce Emerolds from Turquoise. One of the greatest CON jobs ever pulled in Australia was the sale of PastleAquas,were 100s of people bought PastleAquas hoping to breed Aquas [ Emerolds ] PastleAqua = Indigo
This was the main reason Babu Re-Named the Turquoise family into 3 sections Turquoise ,,Indigo and Saphire , Although you never hear of Turquoise or Saphire as it seems all ozys only breed Idigo for some reason.??
Even when you did breed a look-a-like ,there babies when breed to Ino or Harlequin will still be Turquoise and display Turquoise charastics.
Both these Mutations are Beautiful ,both in there own way.
ADDED PICS OF MY COBALT EMEROLD HARLEQUIN TO COMPARE TO INDIGO COBALT HARLEQUIN.

mcw-indianringnecks wrote:EMEROLD= LINE BREED INDIGO TO ELEMINATE PATCHINESS . ???
This statement is just so WRONG in so many ways.

First: I read it as a question and not as a statement. So i think he ask it to start a discussion with a new point of view.
Second: It is a fact that an Indigo has a aqua (emerald) like body color. Not as deep as an aqua but the base color is fitting. See here:

http://www.indianringneck.com/forum/vie ... ald#p90692



greetings the other Chris

mcw-indianringnecks wrote: EMEROLD= LINE BREED INDIGO TO ELEMINATE PATCHINESS . ???
This statement is just so WRONG in so many ways.

BTW: I don't think a breeder who is saying words like this "After buying the world famous Clearwing Cleartail from my mate Gary I bought DF Violets and Mauve (DF Cobalt) to bred to the Clearwing Cleartail's; as they don't even exist, I no longer have a use for the DF Violets." should judging others comment. These words don't testify of great knowlegde within the bird breeding sector.

Here are the feathers in full sunlight. Still no difference:





Willys words: "In full sunlight the feathers appear identical top side and bottom. Interestingly the EmeraldBlue feathers fluoresce more strongly underneath than above."

Regards.

madas

Ring0Neck wrote:
I suggest & i believe i speak for most of us Willy to rejoin the forum.
We need to communicate with each other !!!! and yes lesson learnt for all i guess, lets move on pls





Ben

I am definitely for, even if Madas is a great translator.

Recio

Ring0Neck wrote:
I suggest & i believe i speak for most of us Willy to rejoin the forum.
We need to communicate with each other !!!! and yes lesson learnt for all i guess, lets move on pls





Ben

If this forum is to move forward the return of degrading and disrespectfull behavior should not be tolerated. I am against this motion.

Chriskoi wrote:

mcw-indianringnecks wrote:EMEROLD= LINE BREED INDIGO TO ELEMINATE PATCHINESS . ???
This statement is just so WRONG in so many ways.

First: I read it as a question and not as a statement. So i think he ask it to start a discussion with a new point of view.
Second: It is a fact that an Indigo has a aqua (emerald) like body color. Not as deep as an aqua but the base color is fitting. See here:

http://www.indianringneck.com/forum/vie ... ald#p90692



greetings the other Chris

Chris I have seen this indigo blue earlier in a private communique and agreed it is phenotypical of the line I have here in Australia and I mostly agree with your comments above thou I point out when the subject indigo blue when line bred the aqua intensifies I am still in early stages with my program thou I can state the F2 birds are in some cases darker than the emerald as dipicted and described by JS and TMartin in thier ABK article however I am carefull here to point out that these aqua variants in the indigo are still patchy.

madas wrote:Emerald = line breeded Indigo to eliminate the patchiness???

After the above comments may be we could reformulate Madas words as:
Aqua = line breeded Indigo to eliminate the patchiness???

I agree with Chris that it is not possible to produce Emerald by line breeding Indigos (or even the very speculative Saphire ) but may be we could get an Aqua-like bird as described in other species, which could be specifically identified by its uv signature (total lack of fluorescence under uv) together with a lack of patchiness and a decrease (about 50%) of the even psittacin.

@ Criskoi: we all understood what Madas was refering to ... and also what Chris was answering. Let's keep cool

Regards

Recio

Hi All
I too would very much like to have Willy back on the forum.
Kind regards
Mike

You need a willy for many reason, I think we are poorer for not having him here, so I hope he comes back too!