RIPbudgies

You'll probably findthat she did not have a tumor at all. Infection in the sinus cavities, which are close to the orbital socket, can give the illusion that the eye is affected. The infection in these sinus cavities are so great at times that they push the eye out of orbital alignment.

You'll find that the whole of the 'Dilute'series i.e. Greywing, Clearwing and Dilute will have down which looks white but it is more of an off white. Obviously the removal of melanin extends also to the down.

You wish is my command Kaz. Yup looking like ya got yaself a Dilute there. Been following this thread waiting for a Dilute to appear. So now you know the cock is split for Dilute adjust your records so you don't forget. If my eyes aren't playing tricks on me I am sure I am seeing a blue chick making both parents split to blue.

Jeddo, the above is what Dean_NZ posted for you and you came back with.... I made the effort to give you those combinations and respective percentages and you then come back and say it is too much. GB has given you the same as what Dean did, it is just worded differently.

I rather fancy the Normal Light Green.

In order to work out some percentages I have had to make certain assumptions regarding your birds possible visual indentity based on your descriptions. PARENTS Cock := YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Opaline Violet (sf) Cobalt Type II Hen := Danish Pied Sky Blue PROGENY PERCENTAGE DESCRIPTION 10.750 % Cobalt Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 10.750 % Cobalt / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock 10.750 % Cobalt Violet(sf) Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 10.750 % Cobalt Violet(sf) / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock 10.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Sky Blue Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 10.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Sky Blue / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock 10.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Sky Blue Violet(sf) Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 10.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Sky Blue Violet(sf) / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock 1.750 % Sky Blue Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 1.750 % Sky Blue / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock 1.750 % Sky Blue Violet(sf) Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 1.750 % Sky Blue Violet(sf) / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock 1.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Cobalt Type I Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 1.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Cobalt Type I / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock 1.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Cobalt Type I Violet(sf) Opaline / Dan Rec Pied Hen 1.750 % YellowFace Mutant 1 (sf) Cobalt Type I Violet(sf) / Dan Rec Pied Opal Cock Total Number of Progeny Types (including sexes) := 16 PARENTS Cock := Sky Blue Spangle(sf) Opaline Hen := Goldenface (sf) Cinnamon Violet (sf) Cobalt Type II PROGENY PERCENTAGE DESCRIPTION 5.375 % Cobalt Opaline Hen 5.375 % Cobalt / Opal Cinn-II Cock 5.375 % Cobalt Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 5.375 % Cobalt Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 5.375 % Cobalt Spangle(sf) Opaline Hen 5.375 % Cobalt Spangle(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 5.375 % Cobalt Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 5.375 % Cobalt Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue Opaline Hen 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue / Opal Cinn-II Cock 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue Spangle(sf) Opaline Hen 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue Spangle(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 5.375 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Sky Blue Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Sky Blue Opaline Hen 0.875 % Sky Blue / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Sky Blue Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 0.875 % Sky Blue Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Sky Blue Spangle(sf) Opaline Hen 0.875 % Sky Blue Spangle(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Sky Blue Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 0.875 % Sky Blue Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I Opaline Hen 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I Spangle(sf) Opaline Hen 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I Spangle(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) Opaline Hen 0.875 % Aust YellowFace (sf) Cobalt Type I Spangle(sf) Violet(sf) / Opal Cinn-II Cock Total Number of Progeny Types (including sexes) := 32

Cinnamon Dilute Light green and is still a baby i.e. under 3-4 months of age.

It is like patting your head with your left hand and rubbing (making circular motions) your tummy with your right hand.

Lady luck smiled on you GB. Three Lacewings first up.

Grey is a complete dominant mutation, so there is no visual differences between single and double factor - eg double and single factor greys (white base) are identical, as are single and double factor grey greens (yellow base). Therefore any grey or grey green offspring produced by two single factor grey or grey green parents have a 25% chance of being double factor which you cant be sure of until you test breed. Double factors produce only grey/greygreen chicks. The fact this pair have produced a sky blue proves neither of them is has a double dose of the grey gene. Edit: I dont think blue suffusion is any indication of anything really, irregardless of single or double factor grey being present. Very well explained Dean. I agree the about the blue suffusion. That comes downs to feather structure, depth of colour, pigment quality and quantity. As soon as the first chick begun to feather and I saw it was a Sky Blue I immediately knew that both parents were sf Grey and also split for Blue. Once the down of the second chick came through and I saw it was white I knew I had an Opaline. As the hen is Opaline she can only pass it onto her sons. Since they will only inherit one Opaline gene they will not show it. So to get a visual Opaline in this nest the father has to be split for it. Going with the orignal visual identity of the birds I was expecting to get Cinnamon Normals, Cinnamon Spangle in either Grey Green or Green. I was not expecting Blue but I did suspect Opaline as most cocks are these days. As for the Grey factor I am happy they are both sf Greys but I am still no wiser as to the dark factor. So going into the second round I now expect get similar to the first round. If I do not get any birds with a dark factor I will amend the parents to assume they are thus: Cock: from Cinnamon Grey Green to>>> Cinnamon sf Grey (Light) Green/Opaline, Blue Hen: from Spangle Opaline Cinnamon Grey Green to>>> Spangle Opaline Cinnamon sf Grey (Light) Green/Blue The word Light is placed in brackets as it is still not be ascertained that they are Light Greens. Further breeding will provide answers. The draw back about the cock is that now I know he is split for Opaline he may well not be used over the Black Eye hens as was my intention later. Lets see what happens down the track.

Everybody is doing great. So far: Yes dad is split Opaline Yes both parents are split for blue GB you on the slops again. If both parents had 1 dark factor there is a 25% chance of producing a Sky Blue. So far though these results do not shed any light on that part of there genetic make-up. One more thing to find.

Actually the sex is irrelevant in this case.

Here is a little genetics learning curve for you guys. The results of this pairing gives me a little more information than what I had to start with. Cinnamon Grey Green cock X Spangle Opaline Cinnamon Grey Green hen 1. Cinnamon Sky Blue 2. Spangle Opaline Cinnamon Grey Green 3. Spangle Opaline Cinnamon Grey Post what you think is the extra information that these chicks have revealed.

First of all I am not saying that Neville is wrong here. I am just pointing out a few anomilies. If a theory, in this case lets say combination pieds, is to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then a person must submit evidence that contains no flaws. The bird put up as a combination pied based on the pedigree supplied can be found to be flawed. The father is stated as being a Dominant Pied split for Recessive Pied but this bird may not be split for Recessive Pied. The grandfather was a Normal split for Reccessive Pied and so can pass on either a Normal or a Recessive Pied gene. So unless this bird was bred from first in order to prove its identity it cannot be said for certain the father is a Dominant Pied split Recessive. Assuming the father is a Dominant Pied split to Recessive there is still doubt as to the result. The father can pass on the Dominant Pied or Normal gene and it may also pass on the Recessive Pied gene or not. So paired to the Recessive Pied hen the possiblities are as already said by Neville. No argument there. Those birds considered to meet the visual requirements for a combination pied would then need to be test mated in such a manner as to prove their identity before they can be labelled as combination pieds.

I think the DF dom pied versus combination pied argument is a little tricky to resolve! The following pics are my birds that are combo pied (parents dom pied and rec pied). Note their similiarity to Kaz's DF dom pieds....... I have a couple more exactly the same. SJW SJW you state the birds pictured are from the pairing of a dom pied and a recessive pied. Such a pairing can only produce dom pieds that are then split recessive. So if these birds whose pictures you have put up are the result of such a pairing they are dom pieds and not combination pieds.

It is a single factor Goldenface Sky Blue. NO Opaline. Opalines show wing mirrors and this bird does not have them. I really don't like the look of this bird. It just doesn't look like a very healthy bird. Maybe it was a runt of the clutch?

Now I really feel like a right idiot. :rofl: Usually I look at the dates, obviously this time I didn't.

As you are in the UK advice on wether you can show of not should come from your own country. The Budgerigar Society of UK is the ruling body and they are made up of 11 area societies. The one in your location is the London and southern Counties Budgerigar society. Here is their web address. You should find somebody there who will be able to assist you. http://www.landscbs.org.uk/

I was thinking the same thing RIP, "VARIETY: RECESSIVE PIED (DANISH OR HARLEQUIN) LIGHT GREEN". I read my info in the Budgerigar Cult It's called something like that. In the 6th Edition (1983) of The Cult of the Budgerigar Watmough writes: Pieds and Clear Flighted.-When the fourth edition of this book was printed the story of the Variegated (Pied) and the Flighted Budgerigar was confusing. People talked and wrote of Danish Pieds, Dutch Pieds, Harlequins, Penguins, Dominant Flighteds, Recessive Pieds, Finnish Pieds, etc. The 5th Edition (1960) the working title of the paragraph began as Variegated (Pied) and Clear Flighted but all else was the same. The 4th Edition (1954) Watmough makes reference to a Mr Illingworth whose had written on Flighted Pieds but then made reference to Harlequins. The paragraph is quite long to reproduce here and really needs to be read in context with the rest of the writings. But on the face of it Illingworth's description of the Harlequin is not that of a Recessive Pied.

what can i say to that rip your very tharow as with me i just relayed what i was explained by a breeder when i was 12 so..... and i adopted this methord in my pet breeding flock GB I learnt a very long time ago to not believe everything I heard from ordinary folk. The only thing I cannot find is why the American's came up with that term. When you look at the history in regards the usage of the word even that has a few missing pieces.

The term 'Harlequin' as far as my research shows is of Amercian origin and was not in general usage in any other country. The term refers to the Recessive Pied in green and blue series. It does not account for any other mutation being involved although when they are the bird is still referred to as a Harlequin as long as it is a Recessive Pied. The Spangle mutation had not yet surfaced in Australia when the Herlquin was named so to say. If you pick up any book written by an American you will find reference to the Harlequin. Example: TFH Publication Budgerigar Handbook by Ernest H. Hart 1970 edition. Look at pages 173, 177, 211 you will find pictures of Recessive Pieds, only one is Yellowface and none are Spangle. I have on hand the 50th Anniversary 1941-1991 Edition of the Offical Standard of Perfection of the American Budgerigar Society Incorprated. There standard for the most part is the same as the British they do put in their own names. Under the descriptions for Recessive Pied you'll find it written as "VARIETY: RECESSIVE PIED (DANISH OR HARLEQUIN) LIGHT GREEN". Historical notes for Harlequin and it's origins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin Here is a Harlequin Great Dane. http://www.all-about-great-danes.com/harle...reat-danes.html

Would help to know what breed of sheep they are. Generally blue eyes come with pied or mixed coat like colouring in some animals. In horses there are a couple of blue eye like types called Glass-eye and Wall-eye.

He is a Dutch Pied Yellowface Mutant 2-sf Cobalt.

Yeah can't help ya there but had a quick read through and found couple abnormalities myself. Under Toxic -G- Grass is listed with Sorghum in brackets. sorghum is not toxic it is also known as Kalo and is a staple in cocky seed mix as well as pigeon mixes. I use it as part of my soaked seed mix and have done for many years. Also Milkthistle is mentioned as toxic. Some species are not. I feed, every day, a plant I know as milkthistle. It is also known as Sow Thistle. I have feed this for years and the birds absolutely love it. I would say here though, that if you are not sure what type of thistle you have then don't feed it at all. Also what is toxic to mammals is not necessarily toxic to birds and visa versa. In fact I have seen the wild parrots eating a the berries off a species of Nightshade. This sometimes is an adaption element. Just because one bird eats it, does not mean all birds can eat it! Our Gum trees would be case in point. Australian birds have evolved to deal with the toxic elements in the leaves. Birds from other countries have not! So although we can be quite liberal with our servings to our little aussie mates it may not be the same for our exotic ones.

Thank you Daryl for that very information reply. Now that the reasoning behind the idea has been explained to me I can most definately see with more clarity than I had before. So with this new found knowledge I must say I agree with the reasoning and find arguments in favour of this proposal sound.