genetic

[Rosa moschata]

So with this mating :
Pure green peahen X IB White cristatus coming from IB Pied = IB White split Pied.
All the peachick will be spalding 50%.
And you can get : Blue Spalding 50% + Blue Spalding 50%split White + Blue Spalding 50% split Pied + Blue Pied Spalding 50% .
But NO White Spalding 50% !

In fact it will the same result with this kind of mating :
IB peahen X IB White cristatus coming from IB Pied = IB White split Pied.
50% IB + 25% IB split Pied and White + 25% IB Pied.

You are incorrect.

Green hen X IB White male = 100% Spaulding split to White

If a pea is White, it CAN'T be split to Pied because they are alleles. Being White means having two copies of White. Because peas have two of each autosome, they can't have more than two of any allele.

 

[Rosa moschata]

Okay, I think it is starting to make sense. My mistake was in thinking that all the pattern mutations were located in the same place and that since white can mask a pattern like BS it must be different and located at a different spot than all the others, when it is actually at a different spot than BS but at the same spot as Pied, correct? So in an instance where a visually normal looking bird is crossed with a white bird out of pieds, no pieds can result, and if they do the visually normal looking parent must be the one carrying the pied gene, not the white parent? I'm going to saty far away from Silver at this point, but I am curious about WE am I correct in assuming that it is located at a different spot as well?

So far as is known, the only mutant alleles are White and Pied. All the other mutations are of independent genes. The whole "Whites out of Pieds" thing means nothing, except possibly to differentiate them from "Whites out of Silver Pieds" which would also have White-Eye but look the same as "regular" Whites. Peafowl have two of each autosome (the chromosomes that aren't the sex chromosomes Z and W). Thus a pea can't have more than two versions of any gene. White and Pied are two different mutations of the same gene. A White pea has two copies of the White mutation. Thus it can't also be split to Pied because that would require it having a third copy of that chromosome on which the Pied mutation could be found.

If a White bird is crossed with a "visually normal looking parent" and some Pied offspring result, then the "visually normal looking parent" was actually split to Pied. Visually, being split to Pied might result in only a white feather or two, which can easily be missed. Or it might not show any white at all.

Yes, White-Eye is a mutation of a different gene. We don't know specifically WHERE all these genes are located, but we can infer whether or not they are alleles (different versions of the same gene), linked (different genes on the same chromosome) or completely independent (different genes on different chromosomes) by observing inheritance patterns. For example, no one knows WHERE on the Z chromosome the Purple and Cameo mutations lie, but we INFER that they are there because the inheritance pattern of these mutations follows classic sex-linked inheritance. We know that while they're on the same chromosome they're NOT alleles, because they can be combined and separated again.

One more thing -- the whole "pattern vs color" thing is an odd and arbitrary separation of the mutations. Genetically, it means nothing. Part of the "peafowl dogma" which gets passed around is that peafowl can show multiple pattern mutations, but only one color mutation. I have no idea who came up with this idea, especially considering how this same "rule" is commonly "broken" in so many other species all the time when color mutations are combined. I guess the real difference between "pattern" and "color" is that the former results in areas without pigment, whereas the latter alters the pigment (or feather structure involved in light refraction) itself. But that has nothing to do with how the mutations are inherited, or on which chromosomes the genes are located. And there are peafowl out there today which are homozygous for two (or more) color mutations at the same time, which completely dispels that original dogma.

 

[MinxFox]

So does this mean that really peafowl varieties are not divided into pattern and color, but really they should all just be kept in just the category of varieties and not split up? Or is there a better way to split them up?

 

[AugeredIn]

So does this mean that really peafowl varieties are not divided into pattern and color, but really they should all just be kept in just the category of varieties and not split up? Or is there a better way to split them up?

That really just depends on your preference. While Rosa is correct in that colors can be combined just like the traditional patterns and colors most people are not and therefore it is easier to think of them as patterns for the masses. Additionally, colors are uniform and the patterns are not necessarily.

 

[Rosa moschata]

If by "splitting up" the mutations you mean simply organizing them when describing an individual pea (such as the convention of color followed by pattern mutations in order of oldest to youngest), that's merited. But people seem to be confused that this separation translates over to inheritance, which it does not. In other words, colors are not inherently different genetically from patterns, and aside from White and Pied being alleles, and the sex-linked mutations existing on the same chromosome, the mutations should be thought of as separate entities independent of "color vs pattern" when making offspring predictions or selecting pairs for desired results.

As of now, one could be tempted to conclude that color mutations are inherently completely recessive to wild-type (i.e. you can't tell if a pea is split to Bronze just by looking at it), while pattern mutations tend to be partially visible in the heterozygous condition (i.e., being split to Pied or White can result in a few white feathers, being split to BS can leave males with partially-solid wings, having one copy of White-Eye can result in some ocelli being white, etc.), but that is simply an observation of currently-existing mutations. In other species, there are dominant color mutations (i.e. dark-factor, violet-factor, gray, etc.), and sex-linked pattern mutations (i.e. opaline), which would disprove that hypothesis if and when they occur in peafowl. So, for now, we can say that current color mutations in peafowl are recessive (autosomal or sex-linked), but that doesn't mean that any future color mutations will therefore have to be recessive as well.

 

[EyeKeyYou]

If a White bird is crossed with a "visually normal looking parent" and some Pied offspring result, then the "visually normal looking parent" was actually split to Pied. Visually, being split to Pied might result in only a white feather or two, which can easily be missed. Or it might not show any

Normal looking parent could also be dark pied. Split will produce 50/50 pied/normal looking (split). Dark pied will produce 100% pieds.

 

[Dany12]

Dark Pied = "visually normal looking IB"split Pied .... E drawing !

 

[Rosa moschata]

That image is incorrect -- it lumps IB split to Pied and IB split to White together in the IB X Pied result. And Dark Pied is said to be distinct from IB split to Pied, but the two are both illustrated as E in the image. Just because someone put information into an illustration doesn't mean it's correct.

 

[Dany12]

Cross IB black shoulder pied X IB black shoulder pied ... what do I get ?

 

[Rosa moschata]

Same as Pied X Pied, with the addition of Blackshoulder.

25% IB Blackshoulder Dark Pied
50% IB Blackshoulder Pied
25% IB Blackshoulder White (genetically.....phenotypically, it will look the same as any other White)