Cream Legbar Working Group: Standard of Perfection

[redchicken9]

Shape: Male



Comb: Single; large, straight and erect, deeply and evenly serrated with five to seven spikes, extending well over the back of the head, without touching the line of the head, free from side spikes or thumb-marks. A
Redchicken9: When we count the spikes on the left photo is it 6? I believe the last on the right and rear is part of the blade.

Beak: Stout, point clear of the front of the comb, slightly curved. B [chickat] - If blue line is used, beak extends farther. Blue line is intended to be a 90-degree intersection with the white line that traverses beak and eye line. If orange line is used, then comb extends farther, orange line is more vertical with the horizon.
Redchicken9: I'm not sure on where this goes, but a line from the jaw-line the vertical, is another possibility? Once again more clearity needed.

Face: Smooth (or finely textured, mine with small feathers)?
Redchicken9: Do you think this is smooth or any other definers like fine textured or without wrinkles, open, clean-cut, fine in texture, etc).

Eyes: Large, bright, and prominent. Round in appearance. C [chickat] Just about every cream legbar picture that I have seen has prominent bright eyes.
Redchicken9: Yea!

Wattles: Moderately long, uniform in size, well-rounded, skin soft. D
Guessing that this works for description?

Ear-lobes: Well-developed, hanging about one third the length of the waddles wattles, pendent, smooth and free from folds, equally matched in size and shape. E [ chickat]circled in green, I think it is a fold....however slight it may be...and I think that the wattles are a bit more than a third covered by the earlobes.
Redchicken: This may not be a good rule. Earlobes look shorter in the Punnett image. However the 1/3 was my add in. Could it be 1/2? or is a relationship, just not of importance, ie do we want this include or not?

Crest: Small, above the eyes and extended back towards the end of the comb. F [chickat] - does that mean ending above the eyes, as in a straight line from the eye level to the back of the head would show where the crest needs to end. That doesn't make sense..... above relative to ....what point?
Redchicken9: OK, Small, few feathered, startig above the eyes and pointing towards the base of the blade. Not sure how to describe the male comb, any suggestions? The Polish and Houdans are full headed. How do we want to describe such a small, but important feature.

Head: Medium in length, symmetrical, well balanced, and of fine quality.
Redchicken9: Again, this works for you?

Neck: Long and well covered with hackle feathers.


[chickat] Neck very long and very densely covered in feathers..... (he looks like a lion when he flares them)...
Redchicken9: Ha, ha, yes!
Back: Moderately broad at the shoulders, narrowing slightly toward the tail, long in length, with an even slope to the tail. Saddle feathers: Abundant, moderately long and sweeping to the tail.
Redchicken: Does the back description work? When I look at the black and white photo you put in, it doesn't look as long as Punnett's image. What do you think on how we describe back?




Tail: Moderately full, carried at an angle of forty-five degrees above horizontal. Sickles: relatively longer than main tail, and well curved.[chickat] he has a great tail, had long streamer sickles which made him look very flashy and flamboyant...but he shed those and is in the process of growing out some more.... He does carry tail at different angles depending upon what he is doing.
Redchicken9: Our tails here are higher than 45. Is 45 the ideal?


Wings: Large and carried close to the body without dropping. [chickat] see tail at 45-degrees picture]
Redchicken9: This looks good to me. You on the wings carried close and high or above body line?

Breast: Prominent, well-developed, carried forward and upright.
[Chickat] My rooster is very upright...his breast was more prominent...maybe I need to up his rations. BTW he is weighing in at 5.25 pounds and was hatched in January.
Redchicken9: Interesting, I haven't weighed mine. We will need standard weights. The thing with the breast is I don't know a lot of the differences. I started by comparing language of like birds, now I am looking at all language.
Body and Fluff: Body moderately long, sloping to the tail, broad in front tapering slightly to the rear. Keel of good length, following the line of the back. Feathers: moderately long and close to the body. [chickat] I think that the ideal body would be longer than my guy, I did compare to a Punnett piece of art but since the stance is different it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. Feathering is very dense and surprisingly soft.
Redchicken9: Here you answer the above question of length. I did not know the illustration was potentially a drawing, however scientific drawing is often to accurate scale.




Legs and Toes: Legs moderately long, straight when viewed from the front. Thighs medium length. Shanks round, strong, and free from feathers. Toes: four, long, straight, and well-spread. [Chickat} I think the legs and feet, shanks and thighs are a fit to the SOP
Redchicken9: Yea, another fit!


[chickat] did a close up on the legs cropped from a picture and I think that they are strong, the right length and toes are well spread. Hard to tell when he is walking past. This is s crop from the picture above where he is with the white EE

Redchicken9: Nice feet!

Great post! I know this is a lot of work. Nice job.

Also...I love the classical rooster on the left. I think that should be the model of perfection. Unfortunately I think it is a drawings, and the one on the right is more like what most of us are working with.

Ditto!

 

[redchicken9]

Sorry I haven't been active here for the past week. Craziness at work and at home we've been trying to get the winter cover crops in the ground. As soon as I catch up on all I've missed, I promise I'll reply to the PM's and add more info on club related stuff. Looks like we're getting closer to a SOP...way to go!

Don't forget to give us a review, either based on your CL male or the males (living or past). We need thoughtful review of this language and what it represents.

 

[faykokoWV]

Redchicken - I understand what you are saying, I don't think the names are straying too far from the original.


FYI names so far

Cream Legbar
American Cream Legbar
Crested Legbar
Crested Cream Legbar
Cream Crested Legbar
American Crested Legbar

I'll post a link when the poll goes up.

Just to be clear, this isn't an official vote determining the name. Its just a way to get some opinions of the group regarding the name.


Editing to add that based on recommendations, the poll will not be done

 

[blackbirds13]

I understand that and I have never said it was. In my readings (beyond Punnet) I understand that cream affects gold and silver affects cream but that gold is a sex link - he states as much in this article. I may not be saying what I want to in the correct way and am weary of it.

 

[ChicKat]

Redchicken9: Nice feet!

Ditto!

Good points on all.... some of the things I didn't register, didn't know, or thought were a match so I didn't elaborate. Fortunately this group is working on a draft---and the actual club will hash out the details.

See, I wasn't aware about the number of points on the comb...and thus was concerned about having too many...I need to up my chicken knowledge..

Regarding length and the artist rendition of the male from Punnett's genetic work. The artist is able to draw an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. I suspect also that if the artist was looking at, let's suppose a pen of cockrels from Punnett flock-- Punnett could have said... This is the ideal tail....this is the ideal comb....here is the best wing carriage, and this is the best body. The artist could have mixed-and-matched from several cockrels

Regarding some lengths.... IMO length is advantageous to the appearance of all livestock. We look for good length in our cattle as well....a longer animal weighs more, so it is a good way to add weight. At some point, it seems to me it could be detrimental. (Dachshund-like roosters could develop back problems and have a shorter useful breeding life for example. Not sure...) And those dogs are so CUTE--but I have heard that old age leads to spinal problems. --

Length of ear lobes....Is this something that continues to grow on a bird? Do wattles continue to grow as the rooster ages? So perhaps some -- limiting factors if long earlobes are not desirable - but comparing a very young one to an older one -- may put the older one at a disadvantage...here is my guy from a youngster photo.. Earlobes similar in size to Punnett drawing. Also I have heard that larger comb in a rooter indicates greater fertility--so would it be smart to have reduced fertility for a better look, if that is true?


ear lobes appear smaller....... So maybe some of the criteria apply to certain age brackets?? And we can scour the internet for just length of ear

lobes one fine day...

Here he is way back in his baby-hood (April) small wattles and ear lobes. small comb too. Cannot recall - and this picture isn't that clear...did I hear something about pink on the earlobes being verboten.....if it is a disqualifier or a severe markdown?? Anyone have insight on that one?

 

[nicalandia]

I understand that and I have never said it was. In my readings (beyond Punnet) I understand that cream affects gold and silver affects cream but that gold is a sex link - he states as much in this article. I may not be saying what I want to in the correct way and am weary of it.

you are too confused my friend...

creams affect both gold and silver(both genders) you just dont see it on silver because they are already white

gold and silver are both sex linked, hens can only have one copy of Silver or one copy of Gold they can´t have both genes at the seme time like roosters do(SS/ ss+ or S/s+)

Cream is autosomal and its located on another chromosome alltogether..

I hope that was simple enough, just remember that at the time of punnett article no mut knowledge was known about sex linked genes.

 

[MnMPoultry]

Marking my place...

 

[lonnyandrinda]

I will give what input I can on male shape. Although I do not have an adult male to compare to I have spent a lot of time looking at photos of the British birds.

Shape: Male

Comb: Single; large, straight and erect, deeply and evenly serrated with five to seven spikes, extending well over the back of the head, without touching the line of the head, free from side spikes or thumb-marks.
This looks good to me. I will say from what I've seen so far our US birds struggle much less with comb issues- I see LOTS of badly curved or flopped combs in the British birds, ours seem to only flop when they get too tall compared to the common problem "S" curve I see in the British birds. One less thing for us to worry about I guess!

Beak: Stout, point clear of the front of the comb, slightly curved.
Yes. A few people seem concerned with how far out the comb seems to hang, but ours look identical to British birds. I think as long as the comb does not sag to TOUCH the beak we are fine.

Face: Smooth (or finely textured, mine with small feathers)?
I think finely textured is pretty close to smooth. Not sure on the right wording to this. I think most birds I see are fine in this aspect.

Eyes: Large, bright, and prominent. Round in appearance.
Agree most birds I am seeing have bright, red/orangy-red eyes.

Wattles: Moderately long, uniform in size, well-rounded, skin soft.
Yes.

Ear-lobes: Well-developed, hanging about one third the length of the waddles, pendent, smooth and free from folds, equally matched in size and shape.
I agree with what was already said, most older birds seem to have ear lobes closer to half the length of the wattles. Younger birds I see the 1/3 length. Maybe better wording would be: "Well-developed, hanging no more than one half the length of the wattles..."

Crest: Small, above the eyes and extended back towards the end of the comb.
I am seeking permission to post some pictures I have seen in the British facebook group Cream Legbar Breeding Group. This will give a reference perhaps. What I usually see in photos has become in my mind "small" but I have one picture I have seen that I would have called "large." That particular crest almost overshadowed the roosters eyes it was sooo big. The other problem I see is when it is NONEXISTENT- I have seen photos of a few of those. The consensus seems to be they are fine for breeder birds especially to a well crested female but not ideal for showing.

Head: Medium in length, symmetrical, well balanced, and of fine quality.
Yes. Not quite sure what "fine quality" means here though.

Neck: Long and well covered with hackle feathers.
Yes. Every bird I have seen fits this part of the description.

Back: Moderately broad at the shoulders, narrowing slightly toward the tail, long in length, with an even slope to the tail. Saddle feathers: Abundant, moderately long and sweeping to the tail.
The wording "moderately broad at the shoulders, narrowing slightly toward the tail"- is THIS what we were discussing earlier forms the "WEDGE SHAPED BODY?" Ah-ha I get it now! Most birds I am seeing are shorter-backed than the Punnett example. I am guessing this is just one of the things we are going to have to work on. I do think it makes for a nicer, more balanced bird, I just don't see a lot of pictures with that length to them.

Tail: Moderately full, carried at an angle of forty-five degrees above horizontal. Sickles: relatively longer than main tail, and well curved.
Someone mentioned a LOT of pages ago that although MOST breeds have 45 degrees as a GOAL it is hard to find a bird with the perfect tail set, not to mention photos only capture a roosters stance at a moment which often doesn't show his true tail angle. I say we stick with 45 as a goal.

Wings: Large and carried close to the body without dropping.
Yes. And I think most of the birds are fine here.

Breast: Prominent, well-developed, carried forward and upright.
Yes

Body and Fluff: Body moderately long, sloping to the tail, broad in front tapering slightly to the rear. Keel of good length, following the line of the back. Feathers: moderately long and close to the body.
OR IS THIS the WEDGE SHAPE to the BODY- or is it both? Sorry just trying to wrap my mind around proper body shape. Feathering, yes.

Legs and Toes: Legs moderately long, straight when viewed from the front. Thighs medium length. Shanks round, strong, and free from feathers. Toes: four, long, straight, and well-spread.
Yes.

 

[lonnyandrinda]

Here he is way back in his baby-hood (April) small wattles and ear lobes. small comb too. Cannot recall - and this picture isn't that clear...did I hear something about pink on the earlobes being verboten.....if it is a disqualifier or a severe markdown?? Anyone have insight on that one?

If I remember right I THINK anything other than white on the earlobes is a disqualifier, BUT I have seen someone post a juvie picture of a male with earlobes like this and then later a grown picture of him and the color had resolved to white. So I would wait and see before you cut him from breeding stock.


ETA: I LOVE the way you overlaid the markings on your rooster, very good clear way to lay it all out! And yes that back "point" is actually called the blade. So only 6 points on your boy. Handsome guy, by the way!

 

[ChicKat]

Thanks Rinda----

Every day you get to learn something new...;O)