Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: New question/hybridizing

Expand Messages
  • Brad Martin
    ... The eyering group will produce fertile hybrids while Peachface x eyering group will mainly breed mules. ... I know that in developing the Blue Fischer from
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      > From: "Chris Rutt" <rc_rutt@...>
      >
      > Since the taxonomy of Lovebirds, particularly of the eyering
      > group, is still the subject of debate, it is fairly irrelevant to
      > the practical breeder whether we talk of sub-species or species.

      The eyering group will produce fertile hybrids while Peachface x eyering
      group will mainly breed mules.

      > >My question is this, when breeding such hybridized
      > >birds, how many generations are required before the original
      > desired "type"
      > >is once again seen. How long does it take to eliminate the
      > visual
      > >appearance of the hybridizing? Would the answer be different
      > depending on
      > >whether it is species or subspecies?
      >
      >
      > There is no absolute answer to your question in my opinion. I
      > have heard breeders who indulge in such breeding mention 15, or
      > 18, generations, but I do not feel this has much mathematical
      > basis. I look forward to Inte, Terry and Clive's contributions on
      > this.
      >
      I know that in developing the Blue Fischer from the Blue Masked the breeder
      mated the hybrids together to breed blues, then used the hybrid Blues to
      normal Fischers. He stoped pairing them back to normals after 14 generations
      and they look like a Blue Fischer should. Mathematicaly every two
      generations you should halve the percentage of Masked, in practice you still
      need the blue gene from the Mask so they will never get them totaly pure.

      > What I will say is that because of the problems derived from such
      > interbreeding, as it is still possible to do so, I maintain a
      > colony of Fischers that never throw mutation colours as the
      > present situation in the UK is that it is not possible to do this
      > with either Masked or Peachfaced.
      >
      Some people here keep what they consider to be wild type Cockatiels to
      preserve them for the future. Many of them have bred Pearl hens in the first
      or second generation even from wild caught birds.

      Brad Martin

      http://www.eisa.net.au/~ringneck
    • Chris Rutt
      ... to ... species. ... eyering ... The problem here Brad is the word mainly - a proportion, however small, of fertile offspring is to my mind unacceptable.
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        >From: "Brad Martin" <ringneck@...>
        >
        >> From: "Chris Rutt" <rc_rutt@...>
        >>
        >> Since the taxonomy of Lovebirds, particularly of the eyering
        >> group, is still the subject of debate, it is fairly irrelevant
        to
        >> the practical breeder whether we talk of sub-species or
        species.
        >
        >The eyering group will produce fertile hybrids while Peachface x
        eyering
        >group will mainly breed mules.

        The problem here Brad is the word "mainly" - a proportion,
        however small, of fertile offspring is to my mind unacceptable.

        >> >My question is this, when breeding such hybridized
        >> >birds, how many generations are required before the original
        >> desired "type" is once again seen. How long does it take to
        eliminate the
        >>
        >> > visual appearance of the hybridizing? Would the answer be
        different depending on
        >> >whether it is species or subspecies?
        >>
        >>
        >> There is no absolute answer to your question in my opinion. I
        >> have heard breeders who indulge in such breeding mention 15,
        or
        >> 18, generations, but I do not feel this has much mathematical
        >> basis. I look forward to Inte, Terry and Clive's contributions
        on
        >> this.
        >>
        >I know that in developing the Blue Fischer from the Blue Masked
        the breeder
        >mated the hybrids together to breed blues, then used the hybrid
        Blues to
        >normal Fischers. He stoped pairing them back to normals after 14
        generations
        >and they look like a Blue Fischer should. Mathematicaly every
        two
        >generations you should halve the percentage of Masked, in
        practice you still
        >need the blue gene from the Mask so they will never get them
        totaly pure.


        I agree completely with your conclusion. The mighty dollar/pound
        or whatever drives these practices with no thought to the long
        term consequences.

        >> What I will say is that because of the problems derived from
        such
        >> interbreeding, as it is still possible to do so, I maintain a
        >> colony of Fischers that never throw mutation colours as the
        >> present situation in the UK is that it is not possible to do
        this
        >> with either Masked or Peachfaced.
        >>
        >Some people here keep what they consider to be wild type
        Cockatiels to
        >preserve them for the future. Many of them have bred Pearl hens
        in the first
        >or second generation even from wild caught birds.


        This is the problem I had trying to keep wild type Masked and
        Peachfaced. However I am now on my 5th generation from 4
        foundation pairs of Fischers without any mutations showing in the
        offspring.

        Best wishes

        Chris (UK)
        rc_rutt@...
        http://www.rc-rutt.ndirect.co.uk
        http://www.rc-rutt.ndirect.co.uk/zoo.htm
      • Gwen Powell
        Chris, at this point if a mutation showed up in your Fischer s, would you consider it a primary Fischer s mutation or possibly a throw-back from a hybrid in
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Chris, at this point if a mutation showed up in your Fischer's, would you consider it a primary Fischer's mutation or possibly a throw-back from a hybrid in it's parental past?
          Gwen

          >>> "Chris Rutt" <rc_rutt@...> 08/01/99 01:04PM >>>
          From: "Chris Rutt" <rc_rutt@...>
          ...
          This is the problem I had trying to keep wild type Masked and
          Peachfaced. However I am now on my 5th generation from 4
          foundation pairs of Fischers without any mutations showing in the
          offspring.

          Best wishes

          Chris (UK)
        • Brad Martin
          ... I think the dark factor Masked was bred from cross mating 100 pairs and having one or two fertile young from the first generation when mated back to Mask.
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            > From: "Chris Rutt" <rc_rutt@...>
            >
            > The problem here Brad is the word "mainly" - a proportion,
            > however small, of fertile offspring is to my mind unacceptable.
            >
            I think the dark factor Masked was bred from cross mating 100 pairs and
            having one or two fertile young from the first generation when mated back to
            Mask.

            I have seen in a dealers Blue Peachface - Masked hybrids that must of had
            some fertility as well because I have been told that when Parblue Peachface
            and Blue Masked are mated together that all the young are green and that to
            breed Blues they would have to pair them together or back to Mask's at least
            split for Blue.

            Brad Martin

            http://www.eisa.net.au/~ringneck
          • Terry Martin
            Brad said ... to ... Is this truely what happened or merely folk lore? Other people have assured me it isn t the case. What is the truth? ... least ... This
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Brad said

              >I think the dark factor Masked was bred from cross mating 100 pairs and
              >having one or two fertile young from the first generation when mated back
              to
              >Mask.


              Is this truely what happened or merely folk lore? Other people have
              assured me it isn't the case. What is the truth?

              >
              >I have seen in a dealers Blue Peachface - Masked hybrids that must of had
              >some fertility as well because I have been told that when Parblue Peachface
              >and Blue Masked are mated together that all the young are green and that to
              >breed Blues they would have to pair them together or back to Mask's at
              least
              >split for Blue.
              >
              >Brad Martin


              This would indicate two different blue loci if it were true. But
              how reliable are these reports.

              Has anyone actually bred blue mask to parblue Peachface
              themselves to report?

              Terry
            • Clive Hesford
              Chris, Terry, Cerise, etc. Thanks for your warning Chris but, at the risk of inflaming the situation, I have to say that if there ever was justification for
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Chris, Terry, Cerise, etc.

                Thanks for your warning Chris but, at the risk of inflaming the situation,
                I have to say that if there ever was justification for hybridising to
                transfer colour factor genes from one to the other that certainly isn't the
                case now. The motive is almost invariably ultimate financial gain or
                perhaps in some instances to satisfy the ego of the breeder. If there is
                indeed anything to be learned from hybridisation it is well beyond the
                scope of even the most experienced breeder who just will not be capable of
                the rigorous scientific approach necessary.

                All aviculturalist should steer well clear of this practice and endeavour
                to breed only with birds typical of their species and, where applicable, be
                even more discerning in preserving the integrity of sub-species.

                Whether this sits easily or logically with my generally pessimistic view of
                the state of the world and all its creatures and the likelihood of some
                cataclysmic outcome is another matter. But if we don't act responsibly as
                informed individuals there's no chance.

                However I see no conflict or sacrifice of principles in breeding colour
                varieties within a species. There are some, typified by Rosemary Low and
                other avian authorities, who see this as intrinsically bad for a species
                and fatally compromising their purity and suitability for any possible
                reintroduction program. They seem impervious to the argument that such
                colour variants may be due to changes at only one locus whereas individuals
                within a species naturally vary at possibly several hundred loci.

                Chris, the reasons for your efforts to breed out colour genes from your
                Fischers Lovebird stock interests me. Have you been converted to the
                Rosemary Low way of thinking or is it that you treat the appearance of
                recessive colour forms as an 'indicator' of lack of purity due to former
                hybridising? Because of linkage and perhaps even what I call 'association'
                there is good reason to take this view and eliminate such individuals as
                well as any showing more subtle signs.

                Please excuse the length of this note,

                Clive.

                Clive Hesford,
                Cheltenham, UK.

                Mail: CliveHesford@...
                Internet: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/clivehesford/
              • Chris Rutt
                Well Terry that blue Masked to parblue PF is an interesting question? Will anyone admit to having done it, or have the courage to try it? I no longer have the
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 3, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well Terry that blue Masked to parblue PF is an interesting question? Will
                  anyone admit to having done it, or have the courage to try it? I no longer
                  have the "raw material".

                  I can confirm the fertility of roseicollis x fischeri matings. I came across
                  an aviary of mixed Lovebirds some years ago and they had several PF and
                  Fischers, and their offspring, and an F2 generation. Given the small number
                  involved the percentage of fertile young seemed alarmingly high.

                  Fortunately (IMO) myself and a colleague persuaded them to clean up their
                  act before F3 appeared

                  Best wishes

                  Chris (UK)

                  rc_rutt@...
                  http://www.rc-rutt.ndirect.co.uk

                  email also to:-
                  lovebirdsuk@...
                  chris@...


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Terry Martin <sbankvet@...>
                  To: Genetics-Psittacine@onelist.com <Genetics-Psittacine@onelist.com>
                  Date: 03 August 1999 02:51
                  Subject: Re: [Genetics-Psittacine] New question/hybridizing


                  >From: "Terry Martin" <sbankvet@...>
                  >
                  >Brad said
                  >
                  >>I think the dark factor Masked was bred from cross mating 100 pairs and
                  >>having one or two fertile young from the first generation when mated back
                  >to
                  >>Mask.
                  >
                  >
                  > Is this truely what happened or merely folk lore? Other people have
                  >assured me it isn't the case. What is the truth?
                  >
                  >>
                  >>I have seen in a dealers Blue Peachface - Masked hybrids that must of had
                  >>some fertility as well because I have been told that when Parblue
                  Peachface
                  >>and Blue Masked are mated together that all the young are green and that
                  to
                  >>breed Blues they would have to pair them together or back to Mask's at
                  >least
                  >>split for Blue.
                  >>
                  >>Brad Martin
                  >
                  >
                  > This would indicate two different blue loci if it were true.
                  But
                  >how reliable are these reports.
                  >
                  > Has anyone actually bred blue mask to parblue Peachface
                  >themselves to report?
                  >
                  >Terry
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                  >
                  >How do you enter ONElist�s WEEKLY DRAWING for $100?
                  >By joining the FRIENDS & FAMILY program. For details, go to
                  >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html
                  >
                  >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                • Chris Rutt
                  Hi Clive, and all. I am right with you on the hybridizing question, and it was the number of yellow Fischers and Masked Lovebirds seen at Stafford and
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 3, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Clive, and all.

                    I am right with you on the hybridizing question, and it was the number of
                    "yellow" Fischers and Masked Lovebirds seen at Stafford and Sandown (large
                    bird marts in the UK) which could barely be told apart that made me seize
                    the opportunity when someone getting out of Fischers made some birds
                    available that he claimed had never thrown any other colour than the wild
                    form. "Normals" were, and still are, rarely seen.

                    When it became known that I was going down this route, I was able to aquire
                    some more birds with similar breeding history. I have been lucky that all
                    the foundation stock and subsequent generations have bred true.

                    There is the slight advantage of course that some more astute people now
                    realise that they need "pure" normals to improve their mutation colours.

                    No need to apologise for length Clive - you are always worth reading!


                    Best wishes

                    Chris (UK)

                    rc_rutt@...
                    http://www.rc-rutt.ndirect.co.uk

                    email also to:-
                    lovebirdsuk@...
                    chris@...




                    >From: Clive Hesford <CliveHesford@...>
                    >
                    >Chris, Terry, Cerise, etc.
                    >
                    >Thanks for your warning Chris but, at the risk of inflaming the situation,
                    >I have to say that if there ever was justification for hybridising to
                    >transfer colour factor genes from one to the other that certainly isn't the
                    >case now. The motive is almost invariably ultimate financial gain or
                    >perhaps in some instances to satisfy the ego of the breeder. If there is
                    >indeed anything to be learned from hybridisation it is well beyond the
                    >scope of even the most experienced breeder who just will not be capable of
                    >the rigorous scientific approach necessary.
                    >
                    >All aviculturalist should steer well clear of this practice and endeavour
                    >to breed only with birds typical of their species and, where applicable, be
                    >even more discerning in preserving the integrity of sub-species.
                    >
                    >Whether this sits easily or logically with my generally pessimistic view of
                    >the state of the world and all its creatures and the likelihood of some
                    >cataclysmic outcome is another matter. But if we don't act responsibly as
                    >informed individuals there's no chance.
                    >
                    >However I see no conflict or sacrifice of principles in breeding colour
                    >varieties within a species. There are some, typified by Rosemary Low and
                    >other avian authorities, who see this as intrinsically bad for a species
                    >and fatally compromising their purity and suitability for any possible
                    >reintroduction program. They seem impervious to the argument that such
                    >colour variants may be due to changes at only one locus whereas individuals
                    >within a species naturally vary at possibly several hundred loci.
                    >
                    >Chris, the reasons for your efforts to breed out colour genes from your
                    >Fischers Lovebird stock interests me. Have you been converted to the
                    >Rosemary Low way of thinking or is it that you treat the appearance of
                    >recessive colour forms as an 'indicator' of lack of purity due to former
                    >hybridising? Because of linkage and perhaps even what I call 'association'
                    >there is good reason to take this view and eliminate such individuals as
                    >well as any showing more subtle signs.
                    >
                    >Please excuse the length of this note,
                    >
                    >Clive.
                    >
                    >Clive Hesford,
                    >Cheltenham, UK.
                    >
                    >Mail: CliveHesford@...
                    >Internet: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/clivehesford/
                    >
                    >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                    >
                    >ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests.
                    >
                    >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.