"The problem I find is that there is a lot that is not known and written about a lot of the genes we may be looking at like Mh and Di to include the ig gene. In much of the research I have been doing the authors will specifically state that such and such is not an area of much research and specifically that ig is not a genetic area that encompasses a large amount of breeds or varieties or knowledgeable research. There appear to be more than single forms of modifiers like Di (diluters) and Mh (Mahogany) that still need research. Reeder says that the term Autosomal Red that is so commonly used is a combination of both Autosomal Phemelanin (Aph)and Mahogany expression and that how they are expressed is reliant on the presence of diluters and the suppression or not of the Aph, and Aph can have a strong expression if dilute is not present and the double barring also causes a diluting effect and ig expression seems to have a variant from what I read and am told.... so many questions in my head about this."
Reeder does not present any quantitative or qualitative data and statistical analysis to support his position concerning his ideas. I see this time and time again on this forum. There is no Aph because he has no data to support his position. There is autosomal red because respected and published researchers have documented or considered the plumage phenotype- Hutt and Jeffy
I have seen no data from Reeder that would support the conjecture that autosomal red is an expression of two seperate genes- the hypothetical Aph and the documented Mh.
Reeder also throws around the dilute gene- once again no evidence of the dilute gene is mentioned in the genotypes of birds but from one study by Brumbaugh and Hollander. Reeder presents no data to support his supposition.
Let me give you one example of claims he makes. In his book An introduction to color forms of the domestic fowl he indicates that the cubalaya (black breasted red or BBR ) has a plumage variety genotype of homozygous wheaten, gold, autosomal pheomelainin, mahogany and melanotic. If he had done his research he would have never suggested the genotype.
The wheaten is ok, the gold is ok but the autosomal pheomelanin is not in the literaure, mahogany not mentioned in the literature and neither is melanotic in connection with a similar phenotype.
Melanotic and mahogany are not a part of the genotype of the cubalaya
wheaten males that carry melanotic are a more or less solid black color- see Moore JW, Smyth JR Jr., 1971. Melanotic: Key to a Phenotypic Enigma in the Fowl. J Hered. 62: 215-219
if BBR cubalaya carried mahogany they would have red spangles or blotches of red in their black breast see Brumbaugh JA, Hollander WF, 1966. Genetics of buff and related color patterns in the fowl. Poultry Science. 45:451-457. and Smyth, J.R.Jr., 1990. Genetics of Plumage, Skin and Eye Pigmentation in Chickens, ed. R.D. Crawford, pp. 123. Amsterdam:Elsevier
females are a cinnamon wheaten color because of a gene called Dk or dark - Kimball, E., 1960. Genetics of Wheaten Plumage in the Fowl. Poultry Sci. 39:768-774
Before a person presents information they need to do the research and present any data to support any notions they may have.
see also the information below about cream gene go to post 60 cream gene information
https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/847679/building-and-working-with-columbian-patterned-birds/50
Tim
Reeder does not present any quantitative or qualitative data and statistical analysis to support his position concerning his ideas. I see this time and time again on this forum. There is no Aph because he has no data to support his position. There is autosomal red because respected and published researchers have documented or considered the plumage phenotype- Hutt and Jeffy
I have seen no data from Reeder that would support the conjecture that autosomal red is an expression of two seperate genes- the hypothetical Aph and the documented Mh.
Reeder also throws around the dilute gene- once again no evidence of the dilute gene is mentioned in the genotypes of birds but from one study by Brumbaugh and Hollander. Reeder presents no data to support his supposition.
Let me give you one example of claims he makes. In his book An introduction to color forms of the domestic fowl he indicates that the cubalaya (black breasted red or BBR ) has a plumage variety genotype of homozygous wheaten, gold, autosomal pheomelainin, mahogany and melanotic. If he had done his research he would have never suggested the genotype.
The wheaten is ok, the gold is ok but the autosomal pheomelanin is not in the literaure, mahogany not mentioned in the literature and neither is melanotic in connection with a similar phenotype.
Melanotic and mahogany are not a part of the genotype of the cubalaya
wheaten males that carry melanotic are a more or less solid black color- see Moore JW, Smyth JR Jr., 1971. Melanotic: Key to a Phenotypic Enigma in the Fowl. J Hered. 62: 215-219
if BBR cubalaya carried mahogany they would have red spangles or blotches of red in their black breast see Brumbaugh JA, Hollander WF, 1966. Genetics of buff and related color patterns in the fowl. Poultry Science. 45:451-457. and Smyth, J.R.Jr., 1990. Genetics of Plumage, Skin and Eye Pigmentation in Chickens, ed. R.D. Crawford, pp. 123. Amsterdam:Elsevier
females are a cinnamon wheaten color because of a gene called Dk or dark - Kimball, E., 1960. Genetics of Wheaten Plumage in the Fowl. Poultry Sci. 39:768-774
Before a person presents information they need to do the research and present any data to support any notions they may have.
see also the information below about cream gene go to post 60 cream gene information
https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/847679/building-and-working-with-columbian-patterned-birds/50
Tim
Last edited: