EE/Ameraucana frustration

[Bullitt]

If Ameraucana breeders are taking the stand that if an incorrect color should happen to appear, it is therefor not an Ameraucana, and therefor their line does not breed true and therefore cannot be Ameraucanas, are they then culling the whole entire line?

No, a breeder doesn't get rid of all of that line. The breeder keeps selecting chickens that most closely meet the standards and most often breed true. The breeder keeps refining the chickens to meet the standards.

This is how man-made breeds are created. A breeder keeps breeding to get an animal that looks, acts and produces as the breeder wants. After the breed is stabilized with multiple breeders, the breed may be officially recognized.

"The best definition of a breed in the genetic sense is based on a concept put forward by Juliet Clutton-Brock: a breed is a group of animals selected to have a uniform appearance that distinguishes them from other groups of animals within the same species. When mated together, members of a breed consistently reproduce this same type."

Let's repeat that: "A breed is a group of animals selected to have a uniform appearance that distinguishes them from other groups of animals within the same species. When mated together, members of a breed consistently reproduce this same type."

So, if a chicken doesn't meet the appearance standards or consistently produce the same type, you can't call that chicken a member of the breed. I think the argument comes from deciding how closely an animal has to meet the appearance standards. I think that has to be decided by the APA and the breeders clubs. We have to have standards or a definition so there is common agreement about what a breed is or is not.

A wild animal is different. I believe there are some chicken breeds that were wild breeds. Maybe the breed called jungle fowl.

Araucanas, Ameraucanas and other chicken breeds were bred by people to produce certain characteristics.

Now we all know how chicken breeds are created and maintained.

 

[chickmanna]

I'm still having trouble with the concepts involved here. Isn't the whole key to this discussion making a distinction between what is genetically Ameraucana and what is included in the SOP?

A "breed" is a genetic determination (i.e. scientific), not what someone or a bunch of someones "decides" that it is.

If I buy Lavender Ameraucana's are they EEs until the day they become an accepted variety, then they magically become Ameraucanas?

 

[BarnGoddess01]

I'm still having trouble with the concepts involved here. Isn't the whole key to this discussion making a distinction between what is genetically Ameraucana and what is included in the SOP?

A "breed" is a genetic determination (i.e. scientific), not what someone or a bunch of someones "decides" that it is.

If I buy Lavender Ameraucana's are they EEs until the day they become an accepted variety, then they magically become Ameraucanas?

Not quite. A "breed" is a man-made thing, what a bunch of someones decides that it is - NOT scientific.

And yes, if you buy "lavender Ameraucanas" they are technically EEs until and IF they ever magically become Ameraucanas (which is whole OTHER debate as the APA has yet to admit ANY "lavender" chickens and I'm assured by several with clout in the APA that it's never going to happen. Issues with the term "lavender". You'd have to check with the ABC for clarification on that issue.)

 

[chickmanna]

If I take my barred plymouth rock and breed him to my buff plymouth rock, Im not sure I can call the resulting chicks plymouth rocks, since they will not be a standard color, nor will they breed true in any shape or form. At least with Ameraucanas, the off types, or off colors, can be called EEs, to designate that they are colored egg layers.

Will they not breed true in "shape or form", comb type, body type, number of toes, etc? Won't all Plymouth Rock characteristics be present (as much as they were or weren't present in the parents) with the exception of "recognized" color. Why is this not an off-colored Plymouth Rock?

 

[BarnGoddess01]

Quote:

Because there's no such thing as "an off-colored Plymouth Rock".

 

[chickmanna]

Quote: I agree a breed CAN be a man-made thing, and most often is man-made in the case of domesticated animals. But breeds exist in monkeys, wild birds, etc. that are obviously not man-made.

Color is only one aspect of all the genetics that go into making a group of creatures into a distinct breed.

Genetics is a science, it is not what anyone "decides" it is.

 

[BarnGoddess01]

I agree a breed CAN be a man-made thing, and most often is man-made in the case of domesticated animals. But breeds exist in monkeys, wild birds, etc. that are obviously not man-made.

Color is only one aspect of all the genetics that go into making a group of creatures into a distinct breed.

Tell me about monkey "breeds". I know there are many species of wild monkeys but I wasn't aware anyone was defining breeds in wild populations. Wouldn't mind hearing about wild bird breeds too.

 

[Bullitt]

A wild animal is different. I believe there are some chicken breeds that were wild breeds. Maybe the breed called jungle fowl.

I may have caused confusion. I used the phrase "wild breeds." It should be species.

 

[chickmanna]

Quote:
I stand corrected - the terms are used interchangeably in non-scientific contexts but technically the defined groups are species. Breeds are the man-made designations within the species.

From Wikipedia –
A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals or plants of the same species. Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry, there is no scientifically accepted definition of the term.[1] A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification, but instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset.[2]
References

1. ^ The state of the world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. Barbara Rischkowsky and Dafydd Pilling. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 2007
2. ^ The Genetics of Populations. Jay L Lush. Iowa State University Press. 1994

This definition of the word breed clearly spells out the distinctions that Barn Goddess and others have tried to make. So we're pretty much back to where this thread started. Some will be objective, some will be subjective and we'll all continue to be frustrated.........Isn't there a better answer?

 

[draye]

Because there's no such thing as "an off-colored Plymouth Rock".

If you breed two different colored Plymouth Rocks together and they don't create one or the other color used then you do have an off colored Plymouth Rock.