EE/Ameraucana frustration

[Bullitt]

From Wikipedia –
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]

Right. The breeders decide what a breed is. So, as I said, the APA and the breeders clubs must decide standards for each breed.

There will always be disagreement, though, because people have different opinions about each breed. But the easiest way is to go by the accepted standards.

 

[Frost Homestead]

Quote:


It wasn't *just* the fact that the eggs were green. They were OLIVE green. I understand that some Ameraucanas can lay greenish eggs, the thing is, I've seen his birds. His "red" Ameraucana with green shanks and yellow skin is *not* an Ameraucana. That was really my point.

 

[CityGirlintheCountry]

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."

Okay, I lied. I'm back in.

If we really want to be snarky about it, then by definition blue AMs aren't a true ameraucana since they don't breed true either. Blue to blue gives me blue, black or splash out of that mating.

I buy your definition of breed IF, and only if, each color of ameraucana is considered its own breed. Otherwise the breed is the conformation (shape and form of the bird, leg type, comb type, etc) and egg color. We are back to semantics again.

To say that blues and whites and buffs and blacks and splash and wheaten and blue wheaten are ALL ameraucanas does not make sense by your definition because if I mix the colors they do not breed true. To say that wheaten ameraucanas are a breed and white ameraucanas are a different breed (etc, etc and so forth) makes sense then, because I only get them to breed true within their color line.

It does not work, however, to call all of the colors the same breed. This has been my argument all along. Either the ameraucana standard is about shape, form and egg color (with the feather color being a different issue applicable only to showing) or each color has to be categorized as a seperate breed. It does go back to A x A= A

Wheaten AM x Wheaten AM = Wheaten AM
I get that and totally agree if we consider that wheaten AM is a definitive breed. But if we are only using color as a modifier and not a breed, then the old AM x AM= AM statement has to be true. To say otherwise is to defy logic.

 

[BarnGoddess01]

To say that blues and whites and buffs and blacks and splash and wheaten and blue wheaten are ALL ameraucanas does not make sense by your definition because if I mix the colors they do not breed true. To say that wheaten ameraucanas are a breed and white ameraucanas are a different breed (etc, etc and so forth) makes sense then, because I only get them to breed true within their color line.

It does not work, however, to call all of the colors the same breed. This has been my argument all along. Either the ameraucana standard is about shape, form and egg color (with the feather color being a different issue applicable only to showing) or each color has to be categorized as a seperate breed. It does go back to A x A= A

All breeds of chickens work this way. Colours are distinct. You don't mix them. White Rocks, Barred Rocks, Buff Orpingtons, Black Copper Marans, White bearded Silkies, etc.

Have you actually read the Ameraucana standard? Have you read ANY of the poultry breed standards???? The colours are varieties within the breeds - and each colour has to gain acceptance to the standard individually. For example, with the Marans, Black Coppers were to first to be accepted. Wheatens have just been accepted.

One of the best give aways that you aren't really dealing with an Ameraucana breeder is if you don't see a colour attached to the breed. If they are just selling "Ameraucanas" - be suspicious.

 

[redhen]

Okay, I lied.  I'm back in. 

If we really want to be snarky about it, then by definition blue AMs aren't a true ameraucana since they don't breed true either.  Blue to blue gives me blue, black or splash out of that mating.

I buy your definition of breed IF, and only if, each color of ameraucana is considered its own breed.  Otherwise the breed is the conformation (shape and form of the bird, leg type, comb type, etc) and egg color.  We are back to semantics again.

To say that blues and whites and buffs and blacks and splash and wheaten and blue wheaten are ALL ameraucanas does not make sense by your definition because if I mix the colors they do not breed true.  To say that wheaten ameraucanas are a breed and white ameraucanas are a different breed (etc, etc and so forth) makes sense then, because I only get them to breed true within their color line.

It does not work, however, to call all of the colors the same breed.  This has been my argument all along.  Either the ameraucana standard is about shape, form and egg color (with the feather color being a different issue applicable only to showing)  or each color has to be categorized as a seperate breed.  It does go back to A x A= A

Wheaten AM x Wheaten AM = Wheaten AM
I get that and totally agree if we consider that wheaten AM is a definitive breed.  But if we are only using color as a modifier and not a breed, then the old AM x AM= AM statement has to be true.  To say otherwise is to defy logic. 

x2

 

[chickmanna]

Quote:
CountryGirl - I agree with your original position on this issue because I too base my conclusions on logic as best I am able. A+A=A.

But did you see the Wikipedia definition of breed in earlier posts? Apparently, breeders define breed and they can be as illogical as they want to be, since it's all subjective, and they would appreciate it if no one confused the issue by trying to add logic or genetic science to this argurment. If they ackowledge the concept of varieties within breeds, some of which varieties are accepted by the current standard, and some of which are not, then it becomes necessary to ignore logic in order to take the leap that unrecognized varieties are mutts. Logic would tell them that all the currently accepted varieties did not just spring up unbidden, but were rather developed. Logic would tell them that new varieties can and will be developed and may at some point be included in the Standard and that until such time they are not mutts but rather varieties that haven't yet been accepted.

But according to the aforementioned Wikipedia definition of Breed they don't have to be logical. We logical people will just never get it.

With that in mind, I don't think there can be a resolution, so I am going to follow your lead and get on out of here.

Well, I was going, really, then a light at the end of the tunnel appeared................see red text below.........

Quote: So I guess I should have used my Wheaten Marans in my example earlier today, instead of Lavendar Orpingtons, because Oh Happy Day my wheaten mutts just magically became Wheaten Marans!!

 

[CityGirlintheCountry]

Quote:

Chickmanna- I know, I know. Trying to use logic will never work with this lot because they refuse to even try to understand the logic of what I am saying. I DO understand that this is all made up stuff. All I'm trying to do is instill logic into the equation. Foolish me.

Barngoddess- Yes, I have read the Ameraucana standard. Have you? Because the way it is stated would indicate that what I am saying is in fact true. That the shape and conformation and egg color are indeed what make an ameraucana an ameraucana and the color is a secondary element that comes into play later. Which totally proves what I have been arguing. Yes, there are accepted colors. I get that. What I am saying is that colors are sub categories and the conformation is what defines the breed. Pretty much what you just said. And if that is true, than A x A = A, no matter what the color ends up being. If I mix two standard colors together and get a non-standard color AM, the resulting chicken cannot be shown, but it is still, in fact, an ameraucana, albeit a poorly colored one.

Again, I am not saying we should go out and willy nilly breed colors together. I am all for improving AMs within the accepted color lines and for generating new colors and patterns that fit the standard. What I have issue with is the lack of logic that seems to abound. Either we say the breed is conformation or we say the breed is color. It won't logically work both ways.

If you would like to say that a wheaten ameraucana is a breed and a white ameraucana is a seperate breed and a black ameraucana is a whole other breed, THEN I will buy your argument and agree. Otherwise it is only logical to say that the shape and form and egg color indicate breed and the colors are sub categories within that breed.

 

[pips&peeps]

FYI,

Birds must breed true at least 50% of the time. This is standard for all colors in the APA and ABA, which lets the blue variety of any breed exist.

Egg color is mentioned only as a charateristic in the Standard as "blue egg coloration". My buffs lay a poor colored egg, yet they are still ameraucanas. This is one of the youngest breeds in the Standard. The marans are new to America, but they have been around a long time.

I for one, do consider a mixed colored ameraucana an ameraucana; but only if I know who the breeder is and why. I know to tell people what they are and generally my birds like this are project birds. I believe the problem with the mixed colors thing is that the Club doesn't want new people to the breed to start mixing colors on a regular basis and get a whole flock of willy nilly colored birds. You have therefore missed the point of the purebred bird. Orpingtons aren't generally sold as mixed colors, neither are wyandottes or leghorns. It tends to help keep the easter egger confusion to a minimum.

Other breeds don't have to deal with the easter egger problem; a mixed bird is a mixed bird. Thank you Mr. Hatchery Man.......

 

[collaire]

FYI,

Birds must breed true at least 50% of the time. This is standard for all colors in the APA and ABA, which lets the blue variety of any breed exist.

Egg color is mentioned only as a charateristic in the Standard as "blue egg coloration". My buffs lay a poor colored egg, yet they are still ameraucanas. This is one of the youngest breeds in the Standard. The marans are new to America, but they have been around a long time.

I for one, do consider a mixed colored ameraucana an ameraucana; but only if I know who the breeder is and why. I know to tell people what they are and generally my birds like this are project birds. I believe the problem with the mixed colors thing is that the Club doesn't want new people to the breed to start mixing colors on a regular basis and get a whole flock of willy nilly colored birds. You have therefore missed the point of the purebred bird. Orpingtons aren't generally sold as mixed colors, neither are wyandottes or leghorns. It tends to help keep the easter egger confusion to a minimum.

Other breeds don't have to deal with the easter egger problem; a mixed bird is a mixed bird. Thank you Mr. Hatchery Man.......

Right on Jean. Detracters can say what they will, but nothing is more heartbreaking than seeing a Junior showman in tears because their birds were disqualified becase some ill informed breeder sold them Purebred Ameraucanas from lines that they got from a Hatchery.

 

[chickened]

I personally think that an easteregger is know as a "knockoff" of an Ameraucana. With any other mass produced product imitating the original and being of poorer quality it is called a "knockoff" and it would seem to apply here as well.