Aussie Finch Forum

it's still bouncing around the forum, guess it will sit still eventually

boing boing boing ...

Comparing people with birds is not really a equal comparison.

Granted, both are sentient beings but with a large degree of difference.
Birds, as with other fauna are instinct driven, humans are too to some degree, but the difference between humans and birds is the controlling influence of conscience thought humans have and the morality behind the human culture. Such is the human condition.
Some humans, as you and the article pointed out have seen fit to ignore both their conscience and the cultural morality of the time.
I think you would agree that these people are very much in the minority.
I did note in the article you indicated that the second child was deemed to be normal. It could be that the first child had heart problems that had nothing to do with the fact her parents were related. I feel sympathy for the second child in later years carrying the burden of the parents been driven by nature and their lack of human morality.

Birds being flock creatures, lacking a conscience or a cultural morality and being driven by instinct, just by the nature of their living circumstances would have to practice some form of line breeding.
Darwins theory of Evolution's basic premise is survival of the fittest; so it would stand to reason that with a flock of wild birds they would have to have genetic similarities just to survive. This could only occur if some form of natural line breeding or inbreeding was occurring. These genetic similarities would have to be strengthened to ensure the continuation of the species, in effect creating a micro evolution with the species. I believe nature has its own checks and balance ratio, too inbred and they would die out and too diversified and they could either die off or become a different but related species.

Darwin states in his Theory of Evolution...."Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."

I agree that when humans take a hand in the breeding of other species sometimes terrible things can occur, thinking of hip displaysia, entropic eye conditions, and brains too big for the skull cavity to name just a few, and these only cover a portion of the canine species. These atrocities are committed by people with no thought as to the genetics behind the animal.

For twenty five years I was involved with showing dogs both in the UK and Australia and never saw a deformed pup in the breeding of my dogs.
I understand the risks and and the need to make sure the line is strengthened by outcrossing on a regular basis, just as I believe it happens in nature.

In my personal opinion I believe line breeding is acceptable FOR ME, others certainly have the right to make up their own mind.

Very true Di , I showed dogs for over a decade which meant one had to be aware of the dogs history , linebreeding has been utilised with great success to produce dogs that conform to a set standard and never did I see a deformity .

I recall a doco about finches of the same species on 2 small islands in the Gallapogas Isalnds . One island had an abundance of a seed which was quite small and on this island the finches had a normal small beak .
On the other however the seeds produced where quite large and over time the finches beaks had evolved into very large and powerful beaks .

Nature working at its best and using inbreeding / linebreeding to achieve the desired result.

Could it please be changed to "Inbreeding, linebreeding and outcrossing", as it's not about breeding quail.

Thanks,
Dale

Quail Dale wrote:

spanna wrote:My purpose with these quails: establish whether or not the traits of a female bird effect the extent of red on male offspring.

Is the female different?
Breeding the son back to the mother is not going to prove anything. If it is a dominant or recessive mutation you will produce more from this mating but it's a backwards step, you wont know if it's a mutation or a trait that you can select for.
I got 12 new king quail today and I did see so some had red up to the bid and others didn't, which makes me think is a trait that you could selected for, I would look for more well coloured males and breed from them and then breed the well coloured males from one pair to the females from the other pair and then find more well coloured birds to add to the gene pool, and after a few years you could breed one line of red fronted back to the other lines and you would have full red fronted king quail.

Dale

I've already stated that I believe it's a trait, not a mutation mate. And yes, the mother is different, wasn't just for the sake of it. She has much more cream and less barring on her stomach/chest than my other hens. I'm waiting to see what the young from this pair look like and will compare it to young from another (completely unrelated, already waiting in a separate aviary) hen to see the effect of female colouration on the inheritance of this trait. Once I have established whether the hens make any contribution I will be able to select some more unrelated birds to breed with, no more inbreeding, no worries.

spanna