Hey,

 

I posted awhile ago to find out what colour my budgie is (thread is here: http://forums.budgiebreeders.asn.au/index....topic=10259&hl=

 

There was a bit of confusion over whether she is dominant, reccessive or dutch pied, in the end it was decided probably dutch.

 

Now that I have a few babies from her and her partner, I was wondering if that sheds any more light on the scenario.

 

Her babies are (posted links as they may be a bit bigger than requirements, Im not sure):

 

Batch 1

Baby 1: http://static.flickr.com/48/158697870_b1badab2f1_o.jpg

Baby 2: http://static.flickr.com/71/158697871_ad0e018e62_o.jpg

Baby 3: http://static.flickr.com/53/158697872_acfc81ebf8_o.jpg

Baby 4: http://static.flickr.com/60/158697874_d3102a2df1_o.jpg

 

Batch 2

Baby 1: http://static.flickr.com/74/213061412_cb688716c2_o.jpg

Baby 1 (belly): http://static.flickr.com/81/213062748_0695ea94c8_o.jpg

 

Baby 2: http://static.flickr.com/85/213061409_de93dccdfb_o.jpg

Baby 2 (belly): http://static.flickr.com/89/213061411_335a4abe76_o.jpg

Baby 2 (back): http://static.flickr.com/98/213061410_9389e799da_o.jpg

 

This is the mother (the pied in question):

Clear image: http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e369/smi...oanne/Pebs2.jpg

Showing belly: http://static.flickr.com/17/93407512_a76d79566d_o.jpg

Blurry in nest: http://static.flickr.com/34/93408471_a99efbab75_o.jpg

The father: http://static.flickr.com/11/93407513_1f157e948e_o.jpg

 

Sorry, that's a heck of a lot of pictures, but I tried to label so you just look at what you want to. She still does not have an iris ring (recessive??), and is now well and truely over 12 months old. She does have an almost full wing patterning though.... I'm confused, because if she was dutch, she should have the iris ring by now, true? I get quite confused by it all though! Are all of the (pied) babies dominant pied?

 

Cheers

Joanne

Edited August 12, 200618 yr by Smileyjoanne

How cute they are and gorgeous.

She is a Dutch Dominant Pied Cobalt why you can't see her iris ring yet is beyond me - it may be very very light. I know Rainbow said one of her dominant pieds it is very hard to see the iris ring.

 

The father is a dominant pied like my Merlin in the picture and the coloration is very similar so I would say violet.

 

What was the father for both batches? Do know that both parents can carry the recessive pied gene BUT won't express it visually this is called the hidden gene. If that is the case you can still get recessive pied babies. Also

Batch 1:

Baby 1 - dominant pied (does he have the spot on the back of the head) possible cobalt

Baby 2 - Dominant pied (does he have the spot on the back of his head)

Baby 3 - pied something what do the back of the feathers look like?

Baby 4 - normal grey (was the dad a grey?)

 

Batch 2

Baby 1 - Looks Recessive Pied Violet

Baby 2 - Looks Recessive Pied Violet

but these 2 have blue on their neck so could be a dominant - time may tell on these babies.

 

 

These are my conclusions we will see what others say too

Hi Lovely, and thanks for the help,

 

Yes, the dominant pied blue boy was definately the father for both batches....

 

In Batch 1;

Baby 1 - yes, has head spot

Baby 2 - yes, has head spot

 

By the way, heres the back of

Batch 2; Baby 1 http://static.flickr.com/72/213171221_c9aa1bfeaf_o.jpg

If that's of any help in determining if it is dominant or recessive?

 

I'm curious, if you can's see the headspot, how did you know that these two are dominant pieds?

 

Cheers

Joanne

Edited August 12, 200618 yr by Smileyjoanne

Your welcome

 

The only way you could get normal babies is if both of the parents were carrying the normal gene just like the recessive pied gene.

 

So understanding the basic of genetics with having 2 different dominant pied parts they either have to be the 1. dutch dominant pied or 2. the regular dominant pied with the pied spot.

 

UNLESS of course both parents are carrying the normal gene or the recessive pied gene. Does that make sense? That is why I asked if the spot was there because it is possible and it would be a 25% chance that is could happen.

 

you can see in my siggy that my Merlin has the spot on the back of his head which make him a dominant pied like your father bird. They actually look very similar.

lovley's doing wonderfully

 

Now she does look like a dutch pied, but not having an iris ring, and as the owner I take your word that there is not ring owners are the best at seeing things like that, I would wonder that she isn't. Pied can have a wide range of patterns and it's all random.

 

Half rec. Pied and half normal (headspot pied) is about average for a pair made up on one rec. pied and a normal split for rec. pid (or any other dominant gene)

thanks Nerwen learned from the best

Hi, thanks for the help, Lovey and Nerwen,

 

I am very confused! The genetics gets me tied in mental knots! Here's what I understand, maybe you can tell me which bits are wrong;

 

Pied can either be dominant, which is DD or Dr or Dn, or Recessive, which must be rr.

 

Can a bird with dominant pied genes (DD or Dr or Dn) actually show as normal?

 

They've definately had a normal baby, so does that one need to be nn or nr genetically?

 

The latest two babies appear recessive pied, so they are rr genetically.

 

There's some headspot pieds too, so they will be Dn, Dr or DD

 

The father has to have a D but the other gene could be n or r or even D (?)

 

If the mother is dutch pied, then it could be Du/n Du/r Du/Du or Du/D

OR

If she's recessive pied then she's rr

 

I'm just wondering if I'm on the right track or completely lost?

 

Lovey, in your first post, you said that as the latest two have blue on their neck, they could be dominant... Why is that, and how will time tell... will the blue become more (dominant) or less (recessive) distinctive? Or will I need to wait 12 months until an iris ring does or doesn't appear?

 

Those pics of the latest two (Batch 2) were taken about 10 days ago, here is a an update (taken this morning) of each, showing the neck as best as I could:

Baby 1: http://static.flickr.com/69/213813290_d532222343_o.jpg

Baby 2: http://static.flickr.com/81/213813288_3abd6ea055_o.jpg

 

Also, I took one of the mother this morning and have zoomed up close on her eye in these 2:

http://static.flickr.com/90/213813291_ed43b5354a_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/98/213813292_71bfa53697_o.jpg

Maybe there is a dark iris ring there???? I leave this to the experts, I have no idea!

 

Thanks so much for your help, I find the genetics very interesting (though very confusing) - it's like solving a mystery!

 

Cheers,

Joanne

Pied can either be dominant, which is DD or Dr or Dn, or Recessive, which must be rr.

Yes this is right

 

Can a bird with dominant pied genes (DD or Dr or Dn) actually show as normal?

no the dominant pied gene overrules the normal gene (Dn) mean one pied gene one normal gene.

 

They've definately had a normal baby, so does that one need to be nn or nr genetically?

yes if mum is recessive. Which i think is still up in the air.

 

The latest two babies appear recessive pied, so they are rr genetically.

yes all recessive gene need to have two, one from each parent to show.

 

There's some headspot pieds too, so they will be Dn, Dr or DD

that can depend and there isn't a way to tell between them

 

The father has to have a D but the other gene could be n or r or even D (?)

Correct, but the sign on normal babies means be can't be DD.

 

If the mother is dutch pied, then it could be Du/n Du/r Du/Du or Du/D

OR

If she's recessive pied then she's rr

Correct

 

I'm just wondering if I'm on the right track or completely lost?

Your doing wonderfully.

 

I can't see a sign of a ring in either of the pictures of mum. Becuase of the recessive pied babies from this pair have appeared I would lean to thinking she is recessive. And yes I'm sure I was the one leading the way for dutch last time :(Laughing out loud): But one needs to look at the whole picture.

Okies, thanks Nerwen,

 

So if I took the scenario that mum is recessive pied, rr; and dad is D something..... (DD or Dr or Dn)

 

It couldn't be possible that dad is DD, since all would be dominant pieds

 

It couldn't be possible that dad is Dr, since all would be either dominant or recessive pieds, and there's been a normal

 

But it also couldn't be that dad is Dn, since then it wouldn't be possible to get recessive pieds, they'd all be Dr or rn?

 

So where does that lead me?! Is there another option to consider, or can I conclude by deduction that mum isn't recessive pied and is dutch after all, or is it that the babies aren't recessive pieds after all, or is it just that my logic is all wrong?

 

Cheers,

Joanne

What lovely pictures of your birds,

keep them coming, we need to see more

of peoples birds.

 

It's great to be able to see the parents and

then to see their babies.

 

Cool Joanne

 

Cheers

Paul

So if I took the scenario that mum is recessive pied, rr; and dad is D something..... (DD or Dr or Dn)

 

It couldn't be possible that dad is DD, since all would be dominant pieds

That's correct

 

 

It couldn't be possible that dad is Dr, since all would be either dominant or recessive pieds, and there's been a normal

 

But it also couldn't be that dad is Dn, since then it wouldn't be possible to get recessive pieds, they'd all be Dr or rn?

Normal is what will happen to all birds if they don't get any other gene to change that. He has to have the Dominant gene because of the spot and babies like look like him, he has to have rec. becuase of the babies that look rec. to me. The 'normal ones' missed out on the Dominant gene and two rec. gene but will be carrying one. So he should be Dr.

Thanks for the help Nerwen

 

Okay, so conceptually, there's dominant and recessive genes, and birds that are normal are lacking those specific genes?

 

Is it possible to calculate the probability of normal offspring from this pair then, or only the chance of recessive and dominant pied offspring?

 

I thought it could be done with a punnet square like in human biol, but this way doesn't work with the normals - I only get the option of dominants or recessives: (ignore the dots, they help space it out to format right!)

 

. . D . r

r . Dr rr . . - Gives 50% Dr dominant pied and

r . Dr rr . . - 50% rr recessive pied

 

Is it that the punnet square can't be done for birds, or is it that the D can't be done on the same grid as the r, and you need to do them separately, D and n on one and r and n on the other or something, in which case how do you do that?

 

Cheers,

Joanne

 

(edited to add some dots so the punnet square makes sense!)

Edited August 13, 200618 yr by Smileyjoanne

Your question from a few posts up time will tell

I would say a first moult and yes iris rings to see if the babies are double factor dominants vs recessives . I noted that Nerwen believes they are recessives.

You can get normals from 2 dominant pieds. Actually, you would expect to. Both parents look like Dominant pieds to me. I don't think your hen is recessive.

 

The ratio you should get would be 50% dominant pied, 25% normals, and 25% doublefactor dominant pieds. You can do punnett squares with birds, it just gets confusing the more mutations you throw in there. To make it easy, let's say Pn is a dominant pied. Your results will be either PP (doublefactor dominant), Pn (SF dominant), or nn (normal, although we know that normal really should be NN as typically normal is not a recessive gene). So by pairing 2 dominant pieds, the result should be 75% pied, 25% normal. From your first batch it looks like you got 2 normal pieds, 1 DF dom. pied, and one normal. Is this correct? Usually the percentages don't come out so nice, as they are supposed to be what you will get over the breeding life of the pair. In your second clutch, I would guess you have 1 normal pied and 1 DF dominant, going by the possible outcomes of pairing 2 SF pieds.

 

As far as why you don't see an iris ring in your hen, it could be very faint. One of my hens, Blueberry, is 2 1/2 years old now. Here is a normal closeup of her eye:

 

 

You know how when you use the flash, the rings in the eyes look very bright and big normally? Here is a picture of her eye with the flash:

 

 

This is what I see with the naked eye if I look very closely, but in photographs they never show up - this might be the only photo I have that shows her rings - and at casual glance, her eyes still look like solid black baby eyes. Unless she is pinning her eyes you really don't ever see the iris ring at all unless you are looking for it. At this point I'm sure it will never get any darker. And you still have to look closely in the photograph to find it, LOL. But she is most definitely a SF dominant pied.

Edited August 14, 200618 yr by Rainbow

Rainbow excellent picture comparisons - (Laughing out loud) you need to pin that somewhere

Thanks for the replies,

 

Thanks for your view, Rainbow, I can see how that can work.... Your comparison pics are great, that's really clear... My hen's eye looks just like your top picture, so it is possible that she has a special hidden ring too (Does it work okay if you lighten the eye on the computer after the picture is taken to find the detail... http://static.flickr.com/57/214923675_db8d98ff74_o.jpg I tried doing that here.... there's a faint ring?)

 

Lovey, thanks for that, I think I will need to wait for the moult to be completely sure, or maybe even until they have babies themselves if they have hiding iris rings too!

 

Cheers,

Joanne

doing it at an angle I don't see any ring but I see possible the plum red coloring in the eye noting recessiveness.

 

Rainbow, Nerwen what do you think?

I did notice the red tint too Lovey. Blueberry doesn't have that, but one of my DF dominants (Sunny) sometimes would show that tint, sometimes not too.

 

Nerwen, what is your opinion?