Some people will never learn... Not only are the chicks not Ameraucanas but they are using adult pictures that don't belong to them.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/grd/3708190764.html
The add calls them "American" chicks lol. I personally can only guess how they are not Ameraucana, still trying to learn the propper morphology. The one doesn't look like it has a beard, maybe no muffs either, and the legs are greenish. Is that right? That's why I wonder about mine. The legs look blue-gray sometimes and green others- I don't know if I can distinguish the two as the difference seems pretty subtle, at least when I look at all mine with the same color legs. I think they can't be Araucana because I think they look to have beards/muffs and one has a small tail (maybe legs are wrong too?) although they are still young chicks so I don't know if I am seeing the right "puffs" in the wrong places or not. And then maybe they can't be Ameraucana because at least three of them have no tail (so far, one has a tail and they are the same approximate age- bum looks just sloped down, no little "puff" there like the one that started growing a tail had before the feathers came in). Thus, as siblings, they aren't breeding true to standard. Which makes them pretty blue EEs if I understand correctly.
However I am a newbie as far as looking at chickens critically so I would love some pointers in reference to my chicks. Am I seeing muffs/beards or tufts? Are the legs considered "slate" or "green" on them? They are fairly consistent, maybe those slight variations are normal? They do look very "cheeky" and not as bearded and I would call the legs slate but I don't have a good frame of reference. Maybe they really araucanas? I appreciate any critique you have to offer, I'm trying to learn the differences and it's hard with only four chicks that look the more or less the same to compare. Thanks!
Last edited:
