Re: Turquoise IR
- Nic pointed out privately that I made a mistake with my earlier posting on
Yes, I did misread Deon's post. But I still feel there can be
problems across the board with preconceptions of what to expect with these
alleles. (I just gave a perfect example of this ;-))
All the turquoise IRs I have seen in Australia have been close to
50/50, yet all of these are always outcrossed to blue and therefore
heterozygous. Therefore it seems unlikely that the 10-20% retained birds are
heterozygous, maybe they are a different allele altogether.
The other possibility is that what I visualise as 50% retention is
different to others, which is one significant problem with assigning these
percentages. I might look at this bird of Deon's that has been proven
homozygous and describe it as 80% retention of psittacin (20% reduction)?
- Deon said
>Accepting that the birds with a 10% reduction is a different allele, howwould this fit in with the general appearance of extreme turquoise
expression amongst siblings? I refer you back to the quoted part of George
Other thoughts - the LB breeders report significant variation in
phenotype for their parblues also. I wonder how much the Budgerigar parblue
phenotype vary - I believe it is significant. Any Budgie breeders care to
comment? Clive? Sharon? Inte?
Variation may go 'hand in hand' with parblue alleles?
If there is more than one parblue allele in the mix, what effect
does this have? Do they behave with standard co-dominance or
With regards the reported 'greens' bred from turq matings. Are they
reliable? If so I would relate them to a similar situation in the
Scarlet-Chested parrot whose parblue alleles are not sorted out either. I
have personally witnessed normal phenotypes being produced from disparate
parblue matings (2 different phenotype parents). My guess is that these
'normals' are equivalent to an Applegreen LB. Is something similar happening
in IRs to give all the variation?
- Inte said
> Ringneckbreeders claim that there is no phenotypic difference between a SF turquoiseblue and a DF turquoise blue.
In the 2001 season I bred a substantial numbers of DF Turquoise, out of a DF Grey Turquoise X Turquoiseblue. At the moment I have problems in capturing the essence of the DF phenotype in a photograph, I just cannot get it right. As Cyril is not here, I shall try again tomorrow morning and if suitable or revealing, I shall post it to the List.
There is a substantial phenotype difference between a DF Turquoise and a SF Turquoiseblue. A Turquoiseblue has a mainly blue body (I would guess about 90% blue) with greenish wings, head and thighs. Even still, these parts appear bluish with a greenish layer overit. The DF Turquoise has a substantially different appearance in that from a distance of some metres it has an easily detectable bluish green appearance overall. The green overlay on the wings, head and thighs is still visible but the rump, especially apparent on the breast is of a homogenous seagreen quality, I would put the blue content at 50%.
We have to remember the varying levels of penetrance encountered amongst Turquoiseblue individuals, even from one clutch, so that some have more green overlaying blue in areas while others are almost of a pure blue appearance. So much so that there is now a random classification of Turquoiseblues in South Africa, ranging from Grade 1 that denotes the more Turquoise-appearing individuals, through to a Grade 3 that are very close to Blues.However the homogenous seagreen on especially the breast of a DF Turquoise is to me a noteworthy difference.