If anyone agrees with me that Easter Eggers are more than just mutts respond to this thread NOW

[Tankueray]

Honestly…I completely agree. Except for the first sentence. I don’t think I, or My Pet Chicken, ever said the people who created them weren’t still around. Also My Pet Chicken was just one source of many that I though explained it the best.
You our right about specifying that I am talking about American Araucanas and Ameraucanas though

You wrote that Araucanas were thought up and proposed by the APA in 1976, not true; and that Ameraucanas were proposed in 1948, also not true, but which would mean that most all of the breeders would be dead by now.

Because of all the strife, the APA stepped in in 1974 and provided some direction to stop the bickering. Araucanas were accepted into the APA Standard in 1976, which takes many years and many breeders to show birds that meet the proposed standard - proposed by the breeders; APA has never thought up their own recipe for a chicken.

Ameraucanas were accepted into the ABA Standard in 1980, after again, many years and much controversy with the Araucana breeders, the APA, and the predominant industry media at the time. The APA shunned them until 1984, when they accepted both the Bantam and Large Fowl into the Standard.

I couldn't find where what you wrote was written on My Pet Chicken anywhere. I did find a blog post from 2012 where they quoted John Blehm and referred back to the two (now three) clubs and his magazine article, which is in alignment with both of the histories that I linked to. Any company that sells Ameraucanas and two dozen other varieties as "Ultra Rare Breeds" and "Chickens for Elitists" should not be the primary source of information for a breed history, especially when both Ameraucana breed clubs have the history easily found on their sites.

I totally agree with your intent and I think your heart is in the right place, but your article is not well researched and your information is not accurate.

• There are no such people as the Araucana Indians, Araucanians refers loosely to three groups of native South American peoples, one of which were the Mapuche Indians, from which the genesis of the story of the Araucana chicken largely begins.
• Ameraucanas were not bred from Araucanas. Mike Gilbert will tell you himself that no rumpless, tufted bird was ever used to originate the breed. They are not "improved" Araucanas. Both share the same lineage of blue egg layers, but at best they are simultaneous branches.
• As the current accepted definition of Easter Egger is any G. gallus (chicken) that possesses the blue egg gene but does not meet a Standard and/or Variety (which means that even purebreds can be considered EEs e.g., Splash, Barred, Crele, etc.) then technically Araucanas and Ameraucanas were originated from EEs.

Yes! Just yes. That is it. Boom. Mic-drop.

No, just no. Also not part of the Araucana/Ameraucana origin in either the US or Europe. A different (mixed) breed altogether which later had the blue egg gene introduced.

Dr. Rueben Bustos, a chicken expert in Chile, had himself developed a strain of the so-called “Collonca de Arêtes”, and wrote about the Araucanas in his country, in 1914. But these breeds remained quite unknown to the world until Professor Salvador Castello, a Spanish poultry expert, who had observed and photographed some “Collonca de Arêtes” at an exhibition in Santiago in 1914, later reported on these birds in 1921 in a paper to the First World’s Poultry Congress in the Hague (Holland), causing a flurry of excitement throughout the poultry world. Prof. Castello did not realize at that time that the “breed”that he had seen and described was NOT native fowl, as he had been told by Dr. Bustos, but rather were the product of Dr. Bustos’ many years of selective breeding. Professor Castello later corrected himself in 1924 – but by then the wave of interest in these birds had already begun, and many erroneous ideas had already developed, based upon the original 1921 paper, which was erroneous. [Many of these erroneous ideas are still in circulation today.]

Many persons since then have devoted an enormous amount of time investigating the origin of these Pre-Colombian chickens and the blue egg gene. Their papers are available and are VERY interesting. They generally illustrate that many of the characteristics of these chickens are apparently of ASIAN (Trans-Pacific) origin.

Which is exactly what the "Mic Drop" thread actually explains.

The first description of the Araucanas to be published in this country was done by John Robinson in the Reliable Poultry Journal of 1923, with photos showing tufted rumpless birds. Later, in 1925, Mr. Keller of the Pratt Experimental Farm in Pennsylvania wrote about his small flock – the first Araucanas imported to the USA. The earliest imports were mostly of selected rumpless and tufted varieties. Later imports were made up of “Araucanas” of all types, among which were bearded muffed tailed varieties, all of which then were bred here in the USA. All of these were at that time labeled “Araucanas”.

Of special importance to the Ameraucana history is that a shipwreck of a Chilean freighter many decades ago, in the Western Isles of Scotland, established there a type of blue egg layer from Chile, which were tailed, bearded and muffed, and these birds became the forbearer for the birds now recognized as the Standard “ARAUCANA” in Britain and Australia. These vary only little from our present “AMERAUCANA” Standard. Some of these birds at times reportedly produce tufts, and also rumplessness, showing the possibility of the presence of regressive traits with some of these genes.

Beards and muffs can be bred into any line, as they were with the Quechua, which are a third fork from the same origins of the Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs. In fact, "winter face" as it's called in the other thread, is common in breeds from colder climates, and would not be likely to naturally evolve in South American or Asian breeds, because they are closest to the actual strains of Jungle Fowl that all chickens are descended from. All you need to get winter face into a blue egg layer is to breed it with a muffed and bearded white egg layer. The Appenzeller Barthuhner comes to mind, all the same traits as an EE and that rose comb is easy enough to get rid of.

The reason why the Quechua look just like EEs that we can buy at the feed store, but are bred from completely unrelated breeds (i.e., Ameraucana / legbar crosses), is because they show the same plumage phenotype (that of the legbar), probably a landrace occurrence in South America, but a purposeful manipulation here in the States by the hatcheries, once again, so they can easily be sexed at birth (but note that the Quechua cannot be easily sexed). So all this shows is that the Quechua and our modern EEs share a lineage with jungle fowl and utility breeds. (And the article along with the photo with the two chickens eating the blood says as much. The white one is a True Quechua, which looks nothing like the Ameraucana, Araucana, or our US EEs. ) Like winter face, plumage phenotypes can fairly easily be swapped onto another breed. Just because they have the same pattern does not mean they're of a closely related lineage. A black EE and a black Ameraucana might be, but a black EE and a black leghorn are certainly not.

And to quote the Author later on in the thread:

The Desert Isles Fowl share one important ancestor with the Colloncas, which is in turn the progenitor of the "Araucana".

It was not until the mid 1900's that Quechua were interbred with Colloncas in order to introduce the blue egg trait...

Meaning that the Colloncas are the origin of the modern Quechua and the Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs, as already explained in the references I linked to.

To answer the question, the Quechua is a cousin of the Araucana but really its own unique race deserving conservation.

Clear as mud?

To summarize:

• US Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs share a common ancestry. Araucana/Ameraucanas being more like siblings, the Quechua and European Araucanas being more like cousins, EEs being closer to a parent, and the Colloncas being the grandparent.
• What we now call EEs include any chicken with a single copy of the blue egg gene.
• The original EEs that gave rise to Araucana/Ameraucana/modern EEs/modern Quechua were only blue egg layers, blue is dominant to white, and brown was not around in that area at that time (cream or pinkish maybe, but not brown as we know it now).
• First and foremost, to meet the breed Standard, an Araucana or an Ameraucana has to be a blue egg layer, then meet their respective head and tail types, body type, skin and eye color, and finally an accepted Standard plumage color (variety). Miss any one of those requirements but still lay a blue or green egg? = Easter Egger.

 

[DickMidnight]

You wrote that Araucanas were thought up and proposed by the APA in 1976, not true; and that Ameraucanas were proposed in 1948, also not true, but which would mean that most all of the breeders would be dead by now.

Because of all the strife, the APA stepped in in 1974 and provided some direction to stop the bickering. Araucanas were accepted into the APA Standard in 1976, which takes many years and many breeders to show birds that meet the proposed standard - proposed by the breeders; APA has never thought up their own recipe for a chicken.

Ameraucanas were accepted into the ABA Standard in 1980, after again, many years and much controversy with the Araucana breeders, the APA, and the predominant industry media at the time. The APA shunned them until 1984, when they accepted both the Bantam and Large Fowl into the Standard.

I couldn't find where what you wrote was written on My Pet Chicken anywhere. I did find a blog post from 2012 where they quoted John Blehm and referred back to the two (now three) clubs and his magazine article, which is in alignment with both of the histories that I linked to. Any company that sells Ameraucanas and two dozen other varieties as "Ultra Rare Breeds" and "Chickens for Elitists" should not be the primary source of information for a breed history, especially when both Ameraucana breed clubs have the history easily found on their sites.

I totally agree with your intent and I think your heart is in the right place, but your article is not well researched and your information is not accurate.

• There are no such people as the Araucana Indians, Araucanians refers loosely to three groups of native South American peoples, one of which were the Mapuche Indians, from which the genesis of the story of the Araucana chicken largely begins.
• Ameraucanas were not bred from Araucanas. Mike Gilbert will tell you himself that no rumpless, tufted bird was ever used to originate the breed. They are not "improved" Araucanas. Both share the same lineage of blue egg layers, but at best they are simultaneous branches.
• As the current accepted definition of Easter Egger is any G. gallus (chicken) that possesses the blue egg gene but does not meet a Standard and/or Variety (which means that even purebreds can be considered EEs e.g., Splash, Barred, Crele, etc.) then technically Araucanas and Ameraucanas were originated from EEs.

No, just no. Also not part of the Araucana/Ameraucana origin in either the US or Europe. A different (mixed) breed altogether which later had the blue egg gene introduced.


Which is exactly what the "Mic Drop" thread actually explains.


Beards and muffs can be bred into any line, as they were with the Quechua, which are a third fork from the same origins of the Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs. In fact, "winter face" as it's called in the other thread, is common in breeds from colder climates, and would not be likely to naturally evolve in South American or Asian breeds, because they are closest to the actual strains of Jungle Fowl that all chickens are descended from. All you need to get winter face into a blue egg layer is to breed it with a muffed and bearded white egg layer. The Appenzeller Barthuhner comes to mind, all the same traits as an EE and that rose comb is easy enough to get rid of.

The reason why the Quechua look just like EEs that we can buy at the feed store, but are bred from completely unrelated breeds (i.e., Ameraucana / legbar crosses), is because they show the same plumage phenotype (that of the legbar), probably a landrace occurrence in South America, but a purposeful manipulation here in the States by the hatcheries, once again, so they can easily be sexed at birth (but note that the Quechua cannot be easily sexed). So all this shows is that the Quechua and our modern EEs share a lineage with jungle fowl and utility breeds. (And the article along with the photo with the two chickens eating the blood says as much. The white one is a True Quechua, which looks nothing like the Ameraucana, Araucana, or our US EEs. ) Like winter face, plumage phenotypes can fairly easily be swapped onto another breed. Just because they have the same pattern does not mean they're of a closely related lineage. A black EE and a black Ameraucana might be, but a black EE and a black leghorn are certainly not.

And to quote the Author later on in the thread:


Meaning that the Colloncas are the origin of the modern Quechua and the Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs, as already explained in the references I linked to.


Clear as mud?

To summarize:

• US Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs share a common ancestry. Araucana/Ameraucanas being more like siblings, the Quechua and European Araucanas being more like cousins, EEs being closer to a parent, and the Colloncas being the grandparent.
• What we now call EEs include any chicken with a single copy of the blue egg gene.
• The original EEs that gave rise to Araucana/Ameraucana/modern EEs/modern Quechua were only blue egg layers, blue is dominant to white, and brown was not around in that area at that time (cream or pinkish maybe, but not brown as we know it now).
• First and foremost, to meet the breed Standard, an Araucana or an Ameraucana has to be a blue egg layer, then meet their respective head and tail types, body type, skin and eye color, and finally an accepted Standard plumage color (variety). Miss any one of those requirements but still lay a blue or green egg? = Easter Egger.

hahaha wow this was amazing.

i love when a know it all runs up against someone who actually knows it all.

very informative post!!

 

[EEforMe]

You wrote that Araucanas were thought up and proposed by the APA in 1976, not true; and that Ameraucanas were proposed in 1948, also not true, but which would mean that most all of the breeders would be dead by now.

Because of all the strife, the APA stepped in in 1974 and provided some direction to stop the bickering. Araucanas were accepted into the APA Standard in 1976, which takes many years and many breeders to show birds that meet the proposed standard - proposed by the breeders; APA has never thought up their own recipe for a chicken.

Ameraucanas were accepted into the ABA Standard in 1980, after again, many years and much controversy with the Araucana breeders, the APA, and the predominant industry media at the time. The APA shunned them until 1984, when they accepted both the Bantam and Large Fowl into the Standard.

I couldn't find where what you wrote was written on My Pet Chicken anywhere. I did find a blog post from 2012 where they quoted John Blehm and referred back to the two (now three) clubs and his magazine article, which is in alignment with both of the histories that I linked to. Any company that sells Ameraucanas and two dozen other varieties as "Ultra Rare Breeds" and "Chickens for Elitists" should not be the primary source of information for a breed history, especially when both Ameraucana breed clubs have the history easily found on their sites.

I totally agree with your intent and I think your heart is in the right place, but your article is not well researched and your information is not accurate.

• There are no such people as the Araucana Indians, Araucanians refers loosely to three groups of native South American peoples, one of which were the Mapuche Indians, from which the genesis of the story of the Araucana chicken largely begins.
• Ameraucanas were not bred from Araucanas. Mike Gilbert will tell you himself that no rumpless, tufted bird was ever used to originate the breed. They are not "improved" Araucanas. Both share the same lineage of blue egg layers, but at best they are simultaneous branches.
• As the current accepted definition of Easter Egger is any G. gallus (chicken) that possesses the blue egg gene but does not meet a Standard and/or Variety (which means that even purebreds can be considered EEs e.g., Splash, Barred, Crele, etc.) then technically Araucanas and Ameraucanas were originated from EEs.

No, just no. Also not part of the Araucana/Ameraucana origin in either the US or Europe. A different (mixed) breed altogether which later had the blue egg gene introduced.


Which is exactly what the "Mic Drop" thread actually explains.


Beards and muffs can be bred into any line, as they were with the Quechua, which are a third fork from the same origins of the Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs. In fact, "winter face" as it's called in the other thread, is common in breeds from colder climates, and would not be likely to naturally evolve in South American or Asian breeds, because they are closest to the actual strains of Jungle Fowl that all chickens are descended from. All you need to get winter face into a blue egg layer is to breed it with a muffed and bearded white egg layer. The Appenzeller Barthuhner comes to mind, all the same traits as an EE and that rose comb is easy enough to get rid of.

The reason why the Quechua look just like EEs that we can buy at the feed store, but are bred from completely unrelated breeds (i.e., Ameraucana / legbar crosses), is because they show the same plumage phenotype (that of the legbar), probably a landrace occurrence in South America, but a purposeful manipulation here in the States by the hatcheries, once again, so they can easily be sexed at birth (but note that the Quechua cannot be easily sexed). So all this shows is that the Quechua and our modern EEs share a lineage with jungle fowl and utility breeds. (And the article along with the photo with the two chickens eating the blood says as much. The white one is a True Quechua, which looks nothing like the Ameraucana, Araucana, or our US EEs. ) Like winter face, plumage phenotypes can fairly easily be swapped onto another breed. Just because they have the same pattern does not mean they're of a closely related lineage. A black EE and a black Ameraucana might be, but a black EE and a black leghorn are certainly not.

And to quote the Author later on in the thread:


Meaning that the Colloncas are the origin of the modern Quechua and the Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs, as already explained in the references I linked to.


Clear as mud?

To summarize:

• US Araucana/Ameraucana/EEs share a common ancestry. Araucana/Ameraucanas being more like siblings, the Quechua and European Araucanas being more like cousins, EEs being closer to a parent, and the Colloncas being the grandparent.
• What we now call EEs include any chicken with a single copy of the blue egg gene.
• The original EEs that gave rise to Araucana/Ameraucana/modern EEs/modern Quechua were only blue egg layers, blue is dominant to white, and brown was not around in that area at that time (cream or pinkish maybe, but not brown as we know it now).
• First and foremost, to meet the breed Standard, an Araucana or an Ameraucana has to be a blue egg layer, then meet their respective head and tail types, body type, skin and eye color, and finally an accepted Standard plumage color (variety). Miss any one of those requirements but still lay a blue or green egg? = Easter Egger.

Ok. I get it. I’ll go fix my article. I will do better research and look into it more. Then I will update my article to match. I made a typo too. It was 1984 not 1948. Here is the article I read on MPC:
https://www.mypetchicken.com/backya...o-you-cross-Ameraucanas-with-to-get-H130.aspx

 

[BigBlueHen53]

I love learning, thanks!

And I STILL love my EEs