One more question about runner colors......

[Senna95]

I have one young runner that is supposedly "fairy fawn". If he is indeed that color, what would be his genetics? I hatched him from a batch of eggs that were supposed to be pure trout runners. He's about 5 weeks old now, and his 5 brothers (sisters?) are deffinately trout...... They all came from the same pen.

He was dark brown with an almost black beak and feet when he was born, and now he's lightened up considerably, but has no eye stripes or neck ring. He's also got a bit of a "roman nose". His feet and beak have turned orange. His head is dull grayish-brown, and his body feathers look like those of my other trout runners, only with less light color on the chest.

Could he be dusky? Is "Fairy fawn" a light phase dusky? Since dusky is incompletely dominant, wouldn't it have shown up in one of the parents? (I didn't see the parents.... ordered the eggs on-line).

Thanks in advance.....

Lisette

 

[L0rraine]

Pictures?

 

[Senna95]

It took me a while to find the cable for my camera...

Here are some pictures:

 

[animalloverabh]

i cant see any pictures

 

[Senna95]

Let's try again:

 

[duckyfromoz]

Someone else on hear mentioned the colour "fairy fawn" on here a while ago...Cant remember too much about the thread- but comments were made that many people wondered what one may actually look like. I cant help you with the genetics on this one as I only know about the more recognised colours - But I would love to hear what other have to say- as well as seeing pics of this little one when it is older and has had a few molts so his true colours are showing.


Edited to add...He is very a very hansome looking boy though- what ever genotype/ phonotype he is- I love the colour so far.

 

[Senna95]

I remember the "Fairy fawn" thread. It ended up with no-one giving either the genetics, or showing a picture. Same on the internet: you can find mentions of them (and many other colors), but no photos or information.

I've just ordered "Colour Breeding in Domestic Ducks". I'm hoping that it will help me shed some light on this, and some other questions I have.

As a side note: I'm looking to add the blue dilition gene to my flock. I'm looking for eggs or ducklings of any of the following colors:

Blue trout
Blue fawn
Saxony (apricot trout)
Pastel (apricot)

Does anyone out there have any?

I currently have only greys and trouts. I'd like to add a little more color without losing the mallard pattern.

 

[Sweetfolly]

Quote:
I have the Ashton Color Breeding book, and I don't recall any mention of the "Fairy Fawn" color.

I would assume that it's just Fawn, plus or minus a few dilution or modifying genes.

Anyways, I've been playing with some dilute colors in my Runners lately - I think I have some ducklings right now that are Blue Dusky and Apricot Dusky (but, they're not pure - they're carrying lots of other genes, including white, because they have one white parent).

I believe CityChicker has Blue Fawns and Saxony's though.

 

[CityChicker]

Wow! Lots of good questions. I am not sure where to begin. I think you are spot on in your thinking, Lisette. He does look potentially like a light phase dusky. The stock the eggs came from obviously carried dusky genes. Yes, it is something that they should have seen. No offense to anyone breeding rare colors, but the longer you breed these birds, you will see that there are a LOT of breeders (even big name breeders that have been doing this for decades) that don't have even the most basic understanding of the genetics of color. The lack of eye stripes though is a clear indicator that dusky is involved (which it shouldn't be for Trout). What you are describing also sounds like the bird may have carried sex-linked bill color as well that is usually associated with harlequin phase (again, something a Trout should not carry, but it is very easy to confuse for light phase if a person doesn't know what they are looking for).

Why did you think he was Fairy Fawn? I don't breed that color, but I suspect that Fairy Fawn is the old European version of Fawn. If you google "Fawn Runners", you will pull up pictures of birds that are a deep rich caramel color. That is what I suspect some US breeders were calling "Fairy Fawn". As far as the genotype, I can't say for sure. Deciphering all the old literature on color has been a huge undertaking (and for a number of reasons that most of you are aware, I don't post the information on BYC anymore). I am trying these days to reference the older research whenever possible and it seems that the European sources (like Ashton) are more reliable and correct.

Going back to the genotype, I just can't say definitely. What I can say for sure is that what Holderread called "Brown" in Runners, we now call Khaki (dusky mallard with brown dilution). What he calls "Solid Fawn" is what we call Fawn today (dusky mallard with double blue dilution). The UK Fawn does not have the blue dilution. What he called "Cinnamon" is basically just the same series, but with heterozygous Blue. What he called "Blue Fawn" is really "Blue Fairy Fawn" and what he called "Blue Pearl" is really what we now call "Blue Fawn". Are you confused yet? Fairy Fawn is obviously dusky based, but I wouldn't think it would just be with brown dilution because that would be Khaki (aka the incorrectly called "Brown"). Most of the evidence I have found though does seem to indicate it is basically Khaki. I am not sure why though Holderread also mentioned Brown if it was the same genotype as Fairy Fawn (and Khaki). It could perhaps be Khaki that has been selectively bred for more gold tones or there could be some modifying genes presents (or it could be an entirely different genotype). I do remember reading one reference in the Ashton Runner book about Fawn being bred back to Grey (Mallard) at one point and a richer color resulting.

Who knows. With some of these obscure colors, it is very possible that even the people breeding them do not know. The longer I focus on really learning the genetic aspect, the more common it seems that is. The more you read, the more you will begin to decipher the colors and who really knows what. After awhile, it will become more clear how the colors are "built" and interrelated. You will see that some things written in the past simply do not make sense or are flat out incorrect. That is understandable though. Different authors have natural aptitudes for different things. We are quite spoiled these days as well because all of the information is at our fingertips and when some of the earlier authors/researchers were doing their work, it was much more difficult to find information and be able to cross reference it. The point is that I think you should research all sources of information and then if you want to work with a color, test that information yourself via test crosses. You will find, like I have, that a lot of the information in print is not correct (or current). IMHO, the *most* correct and current source of information is the Ashtons. They have done a lot of the legwork for us by drawing on the research of other earlier authors and actually testing it.