Famous Hatchery 'Pure Bred' Appearances

Pics
...when I first saw that Seinfeld episode, I knew nothing about the real life situation, as most people didn’t I’m sure. Elaine just made it so stinking funny.

I wasn't intending to "laugh shame" you (is that a thing?) ... and I don't think anyone is laughing about the actual tragedy, but the Elaine thing is indeed funny. I'm one of those people that thinks anything can be funny, in fact one of my favorite comedians is one who has a brilliant way of making you laugh about things you don't want to.

When I saw that episode... what ever year that was, I only had a vague recollection of the original story, and wasn't really sure that was what the Seinfeld reference was about. Years later after seeing a rerun I looked it up ... I kind of forget all the details now, I should look it up again.
 
I wasn't intending to "laugh shame" you (is that a thing?) ... and I don't think anyone is laughing about the actual tragedy, but the Elaine thing is indeed funny. I'm one of those people that thinks anything can be funny, in fact one of my favorite comedians is one who has a brilliant way of making you laugh about things you don't want to.

When I saw that episode... what ever year that was, I only had a vague recollection of the original story, and wasn't really sure that was what the Seinfeld reference was about. Years later after seeing a rerun I looked it up ... I kind of forget all the details now, I should look it up again.
I think that Elaine's comment was in reference to the movie that came out around that time starring Meryl Streep, based on the true story of the couple in Australia who were actually tried and convicted of murdering their child, but were acquitted after 3 years, when some of the baby's clothes were found outside a Dingo den years later. The dingo was in the defense, but just wasn't believed by the jury. In it, Meryl Streep adopted an Aussy accent...
 
With my total cluelessness in mind, and at the risk of asking the proverbial "dumb question," what makes lavender "not blue?"

Genetics is the simplest answer to your question. I believe Self Blue/Lavender is recessive

I can help answer this genetically. In the case of the lavender, the blue/lavender color is the actual base color and is seen with a recessive gene, therefore needing 2 copies of it. It must get one from the mom and one from the dad. If it only has one copy of the lavender gene, then it means it has one copy of the black, and therefore would be genetically heterozygous for black, and will be black in color (but having 1 copy of each, would give a 50/50 chance of passing on the lavender gene). I am not sure how a buff color would affect this as I am not aware of the genetics of buff.

In the case of "blue", it is actually a dilution gene on black. The base color is black, and then the blue gene will dilute the black to various shades depending on how many copies it has. If it has no copies of the dilution gene, it is black. If it has one copy, it is blue, and if it has 2 copies, it is splash.

Phenotypically, from my experience, the lavender color is more of a silver gray while the blue color is more of a slate gray. But that is a very limited experience. The lavender color will be more homogenous between birds while the blue color can have various shades, even though genetically they are the same.
 
img_0743-jpg.1519015
BH that looks like a leghorn hen :tongue
:lau Haven't you raised enough Welsummers to know that :gig
 
I can help answer this genetically. In the case of the lavender, the blue/lavender color is the actual base color and is seen with a recessive gene, therefore needing 2 copies of it. It must get one from the mom and one from the dad. If it only has one copy of the lavender gene, then it means it has one copy of the black, and therefore would be genetically heterozygous for black, and will be black in color (but having 1 copy of each, would give a 50/50 chance of passing on the lavender gene). I am not sure how a buff color would affect this as I am not aware of the genetics of buff.

In the case of "blue", it is actually a dilution gene on black. The base color is black, and then the blue gene will dilute the black to various shades depending on how many copies it has. If it has no copies of the dilution gene, it is black. If it has one copy, it is blue, and if it has 2 copies, it is splash.

Phenotypically, from my experience, the lavender color is more of a silver gray while the blue color is more of a slate gray. But that is a very limited experience. The lavender color will be more homogenous between birds while the blue color can have various shades, even though genetically they are the same.

Thank You! That actually makes a great deal of sense. So, if I understand this correctly, the dilution gene for blue works along the lines of the genes that create the many shades of Palomino in horses. The base color is chestnut, with dilutions adding the colorwash to create the golden hues. The lavender would not be diluted (and thus a more stable color in progeny) because it is a true double recessive. Do I have it right?
 
Thank You! That actually makes a great deal of sense. So, if I understand this correctly, the dilution gene for blue works along the lines of the genes that create the many shades of Palomino in horses. The base color is chestnut, with dilutions adding the colorwash to create the golden hues. The lavender would not be diluted (and thus a more stable color in progeny) because it is a true double recessive. Do I have it right?

Lol, I was going to add if you know horse color I could give a comparison! Yes, the blue gene is a dilution gene just like the cream gene in horses! Where no copies, chestnut, one copy is palomino, and two copies is cremello.

The lavender gene would be similar to the black vs red gene. Need 2 red genes (or lack of black pigment gene rather) to get a chestnut. Just one black gene will give a black horse. Same with black vs lavender chicken!
 
What happened to the graceful colorful bird of the jungle? Now we have a furry dim puffball headed chicken.
There is an excellent book that helps to answer this question. It's "Why Did the Chicken Cross The World?" by Andrew Lawler. He researched the history of the domestication of the chicken. Even had genetic testing to try to determine which species of jungle fowl was the progenitor. He tracks the spread across the world, (and back again, in some cases). It is a good discussion of how the "why" you want chickens, influences how the chicken changes. I recommend it.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom