Aussie Finch Forum

Example
R/b PC GB cock x BH PC GB hen
young would be
Cocks
R/b and BH
Hens
RH and BH
Can the young that are not splits be classed as pure, even though they had mixed parents?
No intentions of doing the below, or above for that matter, just curious after reading about people having considered their stock pure for a number of years then get a different head colour come through.
If, for example the BH and the BH hen siblings were paired together, is there a possibility of a rogue RH showing up in later years?

RH is dominant. No BH x BH can ever produce RH but YH is a recessive form of RH masked by BH and therefore if the beak is yellow then BH YTB x BH can produce RH young!

If the bird is not split (eg for blue) then it is pure in that regard but how do you know it's not split eg PC/WC x PC/WC will yield (on average) 25% PC, 50% PC/WC and 25% WC - 3 out of 4 are PC and you can't tell which is which without pairing with a WC and if WC appears then you know it's split, however as it's random for each and every fertilisation process a PC/WC x WC may produce 50 PC before a WC is thrown (unlikely, but nevertheless possible).

I know second para is not part of your detailed question but it goes to the heart of your topic header.

is there a possibility of a rouge RH showing up in later years?

I used the wrong head colour. I meant to put YH!
I know when I pair up birds I always aim to have the same head colours together, so much easier, less splits to worry about.

I know what you mean about the WC I have had a YH bird carrying the /wc and I didn't find out for ages and the WC only appeared in 1 young out of over 10 young I think.

Back to my original answer then. Both RH and YH can be split for yellow and it could show up years later based on random pairings. Use my PC/WC as YH is independent of gender and can be carried (and exhibited) by both genders equally.

Just because you never used YH doesn't mean someone else in the past hasn't and you have no way of knowing if any of your birds are split.

I have two collections, RH and BH each in their own flight, and while I love the YH YB, I don't plan to keep any until I can manage extra breeding room to keep them "away" from the rest.

Black-headed with yellow tipped beak mated to Black-headed doesn't produce any red-headed offspring. Their young are all Black-headed or Black-headed with yellow tipped beak.
I think we're getting a bit precious if we start regarding natural head colours as mutant genes. I regard a Gouldian as pure normal if its not split to an unnatural mutation.e.g White-breasted, Blue or Yellow-backed.

Tiaris wrote:Black-headed with yellow tipped beak mated to Black-headed doesn't produce any red-headed offspring. Their young are all Black-headed or Black-headed with yellow tipped beak.

Of course, this is correct, I can see re-reading it how my post could could have suggested otherwise though.

Tiaris wrote:I think we're getting a bit precious if we start regarding natural head colours as mutant genes. I regard a Gouldian as pure normal if its not split to an unnatural mutation.e.g White-breasted, Blue or Yellow-backed.

I think the issue is pure for a genotype / phenotype match. Blue has been seen in the wild, and many our existing "captivity mutations" exist because some eagle eyed person spotted something strange in a pet shop from a collection of wild caught birds, so there is no real way we can draw the line as what is mutant anyway other than variance from the most common wild form.

I breed the mutations I like, as a geneticist I have issues with people calling "mutant" characteristics which occur naturally. A "mutant" in pureness terms is one created by species crossbreeding I reckon. After all haemophilia occurred by chance in the Royal line of Britain through Queen Vic but none of us would dare consider her descendants mutants .

Fair enough. Your right that many variable natural physical traits are (or were at some stage) new mutations, but I think most people refer to mutant birds as those captive established ones which aren't typical of the normal wild type for each species. I also agree that it is most useful to know the exact genotype if aiming to produce pure head colours or even if attempting to combine them with some degree of certainty as to the likely outcome.

I think the word 'pure' alone is insufficient in isolation as one could argue that a strain of any given mutation, in which all other mutations have been eliminated, could be described as 'pure' for that mutation. For example, one could argue that a "Pure RH Gouldian" could be any chest or back colour. Provided it is not split for YH or BH, it could be regarded as pure in that one narrow parameter.
So any time anyone describes their birds as "pure", my first reaction is always to think "pure what?". This is particularly the case with Gouldians, as "pure wild-type" would still include the 3 naturally occurring head colours. So when describing our birds as "Pure" we should really be adding a qualifier to specify in what way they are to be regarded as pure, whether that be "Pure Wild-type" or any other variation.

natamambo wrote: I breed the mutations I like, as a geneticist I have issues with people calling "mutant" characteristics which occur naturally. A "mutant" in pureness terms is one created by species crossbreeding I reckon. After all haemophilia occurred by chance in the Royal line of Britain through Queen Vic but none of us would dare consider her descendants mutants .

I would

vettepilot_6 wrote:

natamambo wrote: I breed the mutations I like, as a geneticist I have issues with people calling "mutant" characteristics which occur naturally. A "mutant" in pureness terms is one created by species crossbreeding I reckon. After all haemophilia occurred by chance in the Royal line of Britain through Queen Vic but none of us would dare consider her descendants mutants .

I would

I've been waiting for ages for someone to respond to that . Glad someone finally appreciated it .