Best Method to Breed Hybrids?

[BluJay]

Tailfeathers, this thread is reminding me of one of my first questions on the forum: Can A Gouldian Be Bred With A Canary",
Forum members became incensed. Their response was as though I was going to attempt this disaster! I bought a Aussie yellow split Gouldian: it looked like a canary, and this is what generated my question. Here, down under they oppose crossing two species. Unless of course it serves valuable purpose; such as keeping a species going, etc.. On this topic would you please not agitate these people, as this topic is the least tolerated. Find other topics to challenge them with, as Aussies like a challenge, and can throw some sarcasim better than any other I know. Thank you. Kind Regards

PS: they're good people here.

[BluJay]

Let's not start a fight here. There are many types of hybrids. Certainly interspecific hybrids are undesirable when you can't maintain pure parental lines and there is a risk of contaminating the gene pools of both species. In reality if they do form fertile hybrids then maybe they aren't different species but variants within a "super-species" and in all probability ova cladistic analysis of thcasionally hybridises in the wild. Many rosellas in Australia a classic example the way they grade into one another and the species are really geographic variants. So how far removed is Carduelis cucullata (a red siskin) from a Serinus canaria (canary)? Measuring genetic homology can resolve this interesting question. Prior to DNA sequencing was used and prior to that was DNA hybridisation and prior to that was hybridisation. Now that we have the ability to sequence the genomes of these birds we can see that these genera are probably synthetic and not natural. Canaries and redpols come out pretty close in the analysis done by of Frigillids done by Arnaiz-Vellelia. The flow of genes from at the other end of the spectrum are infraspecific hybrids where you cross two inbred lines to take advantage of heterosis or hybrid vigour. There are plenty of purist zebra and Gouldian breeders that don't want their mutations mixed but breeders won't know dominance effects if they never cross them so to say that you shouldn't is not strictly true.

To try to justify deliberate hybridising of limited captive gene pools of natural species by saying that is evidence of close genetic relationship is a moot point. Very obviously, only those species with a close genetic relationship will readily hybridise. Red Siskins may have been originally used to produce red factor canaries and may indeed have a close genetic relationship to canaries but they are also a CITES category 1 species (most highly endangered category). This is primarily as a result of exploitation of wild stocks (trapping) to satisfy aviculture's demand for them. If at least some of the hybrids within the serinus/carduelis (fringillid) group were not fertile, the red factor canary would not exist as there would have been no progress beyond the F1 stage. Red-factor canaries already exist and are commonly available in captivity so why is there any need to continue to cross Siskins with canaries. I very regularly get enquiries from people wanting to buy Red Siskins to cross with canaries and I never sell to them. Using rare species to deliberately produce hybrid freaks is a futile waste of pure genetic stock whose useful breeding life needs to be used to continue its own species in captivity if we are to have a future with them at all.
The outcrossing of mutation birds to normal phenotype specimens of the same species to ascertain the mode of inheritance of a new mutation is not hybridising between species is a totally separate issue & cannot reasonably be used as justification for deliberately hybridising between species.
Individual breeders can clearly do whatever they choose to do with their own birds, but we all need to be mindful of the consequences of our decisions on the relative strength of the captive gene pools of the species we breed. At the end of the day hopefully most finch breeders can have a clear conscience they have responsibly done their bit for the finch breeders of the future. There is a place for scruples in aviculture and that involves doing the right thing by the birds we have just as much as doing the right thing by people.

Very well said. It is questions like this that generate answers like these. WOW!

[TailFeathers]

Let's not start a fight here. There are many types of hybrids. Certainly interspecific hybrids are undesirable when you can't maintain pure parental lines and there is a risk of contaminating the gene pools of both species. In reality if they do form fertile hybrids then maybe they aren't different species but variants within a "super-species" and in all probability ova cladistic analysis of thcasionally hybridises in the wild. Many rosellas in Australia a classic example the way they grade into one another and the species are really geographic variants. So how far removed is Carduelis cucullata (a red siskin) from a Serinus canaria (canary)? Measuring genetic homology can resolve this interesting question. Prior to DNA sequencing was used and prior to that was DNA hybridisation and prior to that was hybridisation. Now that we have the ability to sequence the genomes of these birds we can see that these genera are probably synthetic and not natural. Canaries and redpols come out pretty close in the analysis done by of Frigillids done by Arnaiz-Vellelia. The flow of genes from at the other end of the spectrum are infraspecific hybrids where you cross two inbred lines to take advantage of heterosis or hybrid vigour. There are plenty of purist zebra and Gouldian breeders that don't want their mutations mixed but breeders won't know dominance effects if they never cross them so to say that you shouldn't is not strictly true.

To try to justify deliberate hybridising of limited captive gene pools of natural species by saying that is evidence of close genetic relationship is a moot point. Very obviously, only those species with a close genetic relationship will readily hybridise. Red Siskins may have been originally used to produce red factor canaries and may indeed have a close genetic relationship to canaries but they are also a CITES category 1 species (most highly endangered category). This is primarily as a result of exploitation of wild stocks (trapping) to satisfy aviculture's demand for them. If at least some of the hybrids within the serinus/carduelis (fringillid) group were not fertile, the red factor canary would not exist as there would have been no progress beyond the F1 stage. Red-factor canaries already exist and are commonly available in captivity so why is there any need to continue to cross Siskins with canaries. I very regularly get enquiries from people wanting to buy Red Siskins to cross with canaries and I never sell to them. Using rare species to deliberately produce hybrid freaks is a futile waste of pure genetic stock whose useful breeding life needs to be used to continue its own species in captivity if we are to have a future with them at all.
The outcrossing of mutation birds to normal phenotype specimens of the same species to ascertain the mode of inheritance of a new mutation is not hybridising between species is a totally separate issue & cannot reasonably be used as justification for deliberately hybridising between species.
Individual breeders can clearly do whatever they choose to do with their own birds, but we all need to be mindful of the consequences of our decisions on the relative strength of the captive gene pools of the species we breed. At the end of the day hopefully most finch breeders can have a clear conscience they have responsibly done their bit for the finch breeders of the future. There is a place for scruples in aviculture and that involves doing the right thing by the birds we have just as much as doing the right thing by people.

Although some of what you say is true... it has been proven time and time again with some countries such a South Africa other southern African nations that privates breeders have been the first and foremost solution for people wanting to bring I and endangered species back to life. that is because they have a profitable interest in rearing these birds. however poachers have nothing in mind beyond the thrill of capturing endangered species and selling it for whatever price they fetch. I would say that ranting about endangered birds is basically barking up the wrong tree simply because we are specifically speaking about hybrid birds and not saving endangered birds. and while I am all for saving endangered birds it would be more appropriate to speak through the correct channels in order to achieve that goal.

Furthermore Red siskins are needed From great time to time as the red gene becomes diluted or we can within canaries.
Lastly, if anyone has anything to say about breeding birds and hybirds... Did anyone ever stop and think for once that maybe selecting mutations and inbreeding can also pollute the bird species? Do white zebra finches or whatever color produced, really deserve to be in the gene pool ? Do inbred birds, that potentially have weakened immune systems belong in the gene pool?

People should do their part and take care of these birds. God gave us dominion over them. We should be careful, but I don't see nothing wrong at all as long as we do them no harm.

[Tiaris]

How is "ranting about engangered species" barking up the wrong tree? I was specifically talking about preserving the Red Siskin which has been brought to an endangered status by demand from aviculture. ie. we are the cause of it becoming endangered so it is incumbent upon us to preserve what pure stocks we have of this beautiful bird rather than wasting their breeding potential on deliberately producing hybrids with them. I don't know of any Red Factor canary breeders who need to cross Siskins with their birds to re-emphasise the red gene. Colour enhancement these days is mainly achieved through selective breeding and colour feeding.
Australian breeders don't have the luxury of a regular influx of wild-caught exotic species to replenish stocks if/when their self-sustaining breeding efforts fall short. We must rely on our ability to produce our own future breeding stock from what we have in our aviaries & preserve what we have. The US, Europe and South Africa still enjoy (or at least up until very recently have) this luxury without sufficient due care to establishing sustainable captive populations of the regularly imported exotic species.

[KENTUCKY]

Having read all the post on this subject, I can only wonder what makes you TICK, tailfeathers

[finchbreeder]

Do inbred birds, that potentially have weakened immune systems belong in the gene pool?
These birds potentially have stronger imune systems because only the strong survive. Research shows the humans who survive AIDS can be traced back to humans who survived the Black Death. Strong imune systems produce strong imune systems. While weak ones die out.
Fair Dinkum = Genuine or serious
LML

[TailFeathers]

How is "ranting about engangered species" barking up the wrong tree? I was specifically talking about preserving the Red Siskin which has been brought to an endangered status by demand from aviculture. ie. we are the cause of it becoming endangered so it is incumbent upon us to preserve what pure stocks we have of this beautiful bird rather than wasting their breeding potential on deliberately producing hybrids with them. I don't know of any Red Factor canary breeders who need to cross Siskins with their birds to re-emphasise the red gene. Colour enhancement these days is mainly achieved through selective breeding and colour feeding.
Australian breeders don't have the luxury of a regular influx of wild-caught exotic species to replenish stocks if/when their self-sustaining breeding efforts fall short. We must rely on our ability to produce our own future breeding stock from what we have in our aviaries & preserve what we have. The US, Europe and South Africa still enjoy (or at least up until very recently have) this luxury without sufficient due care to establishing sustainable captive populations of the regularly imported exotic species.

Aviculture increases a bird population and decreases the needs from wild sources. It was done to stop poachers from poaching many animals because the supply from fur farms and the like made the sources people demanded to be cheap.

I'm sure it's not hard to trace these wild bird imports and rake the birds back in the wild or use that stock to interbreed with wild birds.

I think if someone were angry at endangered species, I'm certainly not the one who could make change. But do you know what I would do if I had the money? I'd trap wild birds and raise them for release into the wild myself. Waiting on the government to take responsibility and make change means they have to justify it through many legal loopholes and trying to find funding for it. I'd rather be at the forefront of doing what's right in this case, but I cannot.

I don't know how Australia works when it comes to the government, but I'm sure it's similar to english law and commonwealth law. Write to your government bodies to someone who will lend you an ear and is sincere about their job.

[TailFeathers]

Do inbred birds, that potentially have weakened immune systems belong in the gene pool?
These birds potentially have stronger imune systems because only the strong survive. Research shows the humans who survive AIDS can be traced back to humans who survived the Black Death. Strong imune systems produce strong imune systems. While weak ones die out.
Fair Dinkum = Genuine or serious
LML

Don't forget sir, that with weak immune systems we are also pumping them with medications and they're not the strongest that you make them to be. In reality, their bad genes are also passed down. But anyway this is beyond my point. If someone complains about hybrids the same argument, in principle, is put forth for avi culture itself.

[Tiaris]

If someone complains about hybrids the same argument, in principle, is put forth for avi culture itself.[/quote]

You seem have a very distorted view of aviculture.

[TailFeathers]

Maybe but in the end you're taking bird out of their natural habitat and feeding them foods they wouldn't be necessarily eating and in the end it's for your personal satisfaction. Unless you're running some type of wild. Ird restocking program or rehabilitation program for birds I see absolutely no difference between aviculture and hybridization of birds.

Both require human intervention. Both are breeding programs not found in nature and both utilize that which is unnatural to birds to whatever degree you want to believe. The reality remains the same a bird really doesn't belong in a cage being bred to have various colors, fed foods it normally wouldn't eat and forced to inbreed with close relatives so the breeder can take it to a show and get a prize for it.

I'm not against breeding birds, but I'm just trying to show you the contradiction in someone breeding birds not accepting hybrids.