Lady Amherst - pure breed or mutant?

[destinduck]

Sorry,cant do it. Dont want to get my butt in a sling for any reason with him or any body else for that matter but mainly because Im on the" pure side"anyway. As in I dont want to encourage it any more than where it is going now. I dont want to get into a "prove it" contest neither with anyone. Im fine with whether you believe me or not, really ! I know what I saw and what I heard from a good ole boy farmer with no reason to make up what Ive told you. Thats more than good enough for me. I try to keep and raise the purest ruffed pheasants I can get but if anyone wants to do otherwise that is their choice.Im sure not going to stop em but on the other hand I sure aint gonna help em all that much either. Im pretty much with Alien because of whats happening to the green peafowl.

 

[AllenWMiller]

AquaEyes I agree with much of what you have to say in your post. But with regard to Pheasants (and others like Parrots, canaries, etc.), generally, I do have to take exception to your post classifying them as "non domestic" Aves. Pheasants particularly are clearly domestic Aves even though various governments class them as "non domestic". Golden Pheasants, as example, have been bred and raised for food for centuries in China, Korea and Japan, to sate the demand for the imperial houses. Likewise, Ring-necks have been reared in the States since it's founding to find their way regularly to the tables of the rich and powerful of the colonies. You can debate that they are wild since they still "exist" as a wild form but then too so does "Gallus gallus" but this doesn't make chickens "wild".

Even chickens were not "Gallus domesticus" until some 4 to 7 millenia ago when man decided there was value in keeping and rearing "Gallus gallus". The fact that this string is discussing the penning and hybridization of Lady Amherst and Golden Pheasants is prime example to their domestication.

"With chickens, breeds are defined by the way they look, and if they can reproduce themselves consistently -- "breeding true." If you want to introduce a new color into a breed, you can do so by crossing in a chicken with the color from another breed. Then just keep breeding back to the desired breed until you get what you want, and when it looks like a Leghorn and makes babies that look like Leghorns, then it is a Leghorn."

And clearly your statement here also applies to standard bred Pheasants as well as hybrid of Pheasants or Peacocks or Parrots, etc. Do we not define "pheasants" and all Aves by the way they look and reproduce themselves? And do we not define any hybrid by the way it "looks" and perhaps even "its lack of reproductive capability". Afterall, the word "mule" means sterile and comes from crossing (hybridizing) a Horse with a donkey to get a "mule".

Though even with chickens, the statement over simplifies the genetics and breeding methods used to achieve what a "standard breed" will "turn out to look like". Much like with pheasants you mention the hybridizing resulting in infertility and even with chickens you can run into this road block.

That farmers and ornithologists look at keeping Aves completely differently holds truth,; nonetheless they both approach the keeping of Aves with an eye to continuing the lines they start with and as you state their only differences are often in their "approach" to the rearing and confinement. But their breeding programs and methodology are usually always comparable.

JA

 

[AquaEyes]

My text is italicized below:

AquaEyes I agree with much of what you have to say in your post. But with regard to Pheasants (and others like Parrots, canaries, etc.), generally, I do have to take exception to your post classifying them as "non domestic" Aves. Pheasants particularly are clearly domestic Aves even though various governments class them as "non domestic". Golden Pheasants, as example, have been bred and raised for food for centuries in China, Korea and Japan, to sate the demand for the imperial houses. Likewise, Ring-necks have been reared in the States since it's founding to find their way regularly to the tables of the rich and powerful of the colonies. You can debate that they are wild since they still "exist" as a wild form but then too so does "Gallus gallus" but this doesn't make chickens "wild".

There is a difference between "domestic" and "domesticated." The process of "domestication" (a population differs genetically from its wild ancestors, involving more than just single-gene color mutations) involves a longer period of time than does the process of becoming "domestic" (born in captivity). Besides the fact that the pheasants have been hybridized with related species and subspecies, and single-gene color mutations, most do not differ significantly from the examples in the wild. Yes, Gallus gallus exists in the wild, but it differs from its domesticated chicken relative -- there are two populations, one of which is the wild, the other is the domesticated. Chickens aren't wild, and the wild Gallus gallus are not domesticated -- these are two significantly different populations. Ringneck pheasants bred in captivity do not differ to this degree from the ringnecks in the wild -- they have not yet diverged into significantly different populations (save for the hybridization between species and subspecies, and single-gene color mutations which are very minor with regards to the total number of genes in each bird.).

Even chickens were not "Gallus domesticus" until some 4 to 7 millenia ago when man decided there was value in keeping and rearing "Gallus gallus". The fact that this string is discussing the penning and hybridization of Lady Amherst and Golden Pheasants is prime example to their domestication.

"With chickens, breeds are defined by the way they look, and if they can reproduce themselves consistently -- "breeding true." If you want to introduce a new color into a breed, you can do so by crossing in a chicken with the color from another breed. Then just keep breeding back to the desired breed until you get what you want, and when it looks like a Leghorn and makes babies that look like Leghorns, then it is a Leghorn."

And clearly your statement here also applies to standard bred Pheasants as well as hybrid of Pheasants or Peacocks or Parrots, etc. Do we not define "pheasants" and all Aves by the way they look and reproduce themselves? And do we not define any hybrid by the way it "looks" and perhaps even "its lack of reproductive capability". Afterall, the word "mule" means sterile and comes from crossing (hybridizing) a Horse with a donkey to get a "mule".

Appearance is the first characteristic used to assign species, but it is not the only one, nor does it trump all others. There are cryptic species -- two different species that look identical but form separate breeding populations, and differ at a genetic level similar to two different species that seem (to our eyes) much more different. The Aurochsen were ancestors to domesticated cattle, and became extinct in the 17th Century. Today there are efforts to breed look-alikes. They may look like Aurochsen, but there's more to being an Aurochs than looking like one. People often cite the "mule" in references to hybrids, but it's actually relatively uncommon that intra-generic hybrids are sterile -- many species' hybrids are fertile. If your familiarity begins with domesticated farm animals then you come from the idea that "hybrids are sterile, with rare exceptions, so if the animals can breed, they're not hybrids." If your familiarity begins with wild species then you know that there are several mechanisms that thwart hybridization in the wild, and sterility is just one of them. There's also behavior, geography, anatomy, etc. which can all be removed in captivity. The difference between "pure species" and "standard-bred animals" is that when evidence of hybridization is discovered in what was considered to be an example of a "pure species" then the animal is not bred, because only hybrids can come from hybrids. But when "breeding to a standard" is the philosophy, that trait is considered a "fault" which can be "bred out." When the trait no longer appears in subsequent generations, the lie of the animals' purity can resume.

Though even with chickens, the statement over simplifies the genetics and breeding methods used to achieve what a "standard breed" will "turn out to look like". Much like with pheasants you mention the hybridizing resulting in infertility and even with chickens you can run into this road block.

Infertility may happen in the first few generations of hybridization, but typically diminishes with subsequent generations of breeding back to one parent species. An example is to be found among the wild-domestic hybrids among cats. Bengals are bred from crosses with Asian Leopard Cats. Males are sterile in the first few generations, but females are fertile. It is usually not until about the third or fourth generation of breeding back to domesticated cats that males regain fertility, and from that point on, there's no issue. But fertile or not, they still derive some of their genes from another species, and are thus hybrids, even though they may be considered a "pure breed" because they and their offspring fit the Standard of Perfection.

That farmers and ornithologists look at keeping Aves completely differently holds truth,; nonetheless they both approach the keeping of Aves with an eye to continuing the lines they start with and as you state their only differences are often in their "approach" to the rearing and confinement. But their breeding programs and methodology are usually always comparable.

JA

Not necessarily, and that was the point of my post. In the farmer's view, the introduction of some "new blood" from a different species is considered OK if they're able, in subsequent generations, to return the animals to the standards to which they select. From the ornithologists' standpoint, once hybrid stock is introduced into a line, it is forever tainted, even if you can't tell just by looking. And I think it all comes down to whether you view the different pheasants as "breeds" (which are man-made populations that conform to man-made standards) or "species" (which are nature-made populations from the wild). I guess it all comes down to whether you want to "create a breed" of bird that mostly resembles its wild ancestor, or if you wish to "replicate the wild species in captivity" which means maintaining a level of purity of bloodlines that goes beyond the needs required by the other desire.

I do enjoy the discourse. Thank you for responding.

 

[AquaEyes]

I want to add that I'm not knocking either philosophy -- each approaches keeping birds from a different perspective, and each breeds birds to fulfill those desires. There are many buyers who are interested in simply having attractive and interesting birds, and for them, the farmer/rancher/chicken-keeper philosophy satisfies that. Likewise, those who are interested in maintaining in captivity a representative sample of a wild species also have valid interests, though the birds they desire must pass through stricter requirements. The conflict arises when a member of the first group tries to pass off his birds as being able to satisfy the requirements set by the second group. Thus for members of the second group, the Golden pheasants (for example) that are bred in a variety of mutations which arose from hybridization do not meet their criteria as being "true Golden pheasants" despite the fact that the members of the first group consider them to be so.

 

[Lophura]

Dan do you have any more info or a name?

All the Peach or splash goldens that I know of trace back to Louy Bougie.

I'll tell you that it's Chico, CA and the conversation was in 1993. Several of the birds were sent to Minn & Wis to help with his project prior to 93. That's as far as I'm going to name names publicly!! I think most who have been around in this hobby for that long know of those in those two states who started selling the "new mutants" (wasn't a comic book for a while as well?). Of course it wasn't until the scourge of the peafowl mutants hit the market in the late 90s that an increase in Goldens began appear. Strange, sad, & funny how $$$ change avicultural approaches!! Conservation takes a backseat when it comes to making money.

As far as the hybrids breeding, I wouldn't know, but I believe that that since Phasianus & Chrysolophus are closely related, I wouldn't say it's not possible.

Dan

 

[AllenWMiller]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]There is a difference between "domestic" and "domesticated." The process of "domestication" (a population differs genetically from its wild ancestors, involving more than just single-gene color mutations) involves a longer period of time than does the process of becoming "domestic" (born in captivity). Besides the fact that the pheasants have been hybridized with related species and subspecies, and single-gene color mutations, most do not differ significantly from the examples in the wild.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]And this was my previous point regarding Golden Pheasants. The examples of Goldens in captivity are not genetically identical to their wild counterparts; either in the States or in mainland China. Having done years of work in China as a poultry scientist I can assure you genetically pure Goldens really do not exist anymore. What we have in most zoos, even in the U.S., are not genetically pure Goldens but some mutation of a true Golden. This is due in large part to the domestication by the Chinese over a period of centuries to improve the bird's meat quality. This is why I generally refer to Golden and Lady Amherst as “breeds” rather than species; as “species” would refer strictly to a genetically “wild” birds and certainly what we have in “captivity” doesn't conform to this genetic standard.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Yes, Gallus gallus exists in the wild, but it differs from its domesticated chicken relative -- there are two populations, one of which is the wild, the other is the domesticated. Chickens aren't wild, and the wild Gallus gallus are not domesticated -- these are two significantly different populations. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Actually Gallus dometicus has a great deal in common with it's “wild” counterparts. When I was a young man just starting to study in the “new” field of genetics and breeding, we all thought (as did Darwin believe) that Gallus domesticus was directly descended from Gallus gallus. Today this is being called into question and being postulated that Gallus sonnerattii [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]is also a parent of G.domesticus being responsible for “yellow skin”. It can also be debated that from Gallus varius descends pheasants and certain chickens and Gallus lafayette derived various Asiatic fowl. But the reality is that Gallus gallus domesticus is only varied from its “wild” progenitors by degrees of non-coded genetic material. So the common chicken is still wild at its coded genetic base and could easily revert in less than 50 generations.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Ringneck pheasants bred in captivity do not differ to this degree from the ringnecks in the wild -- they have not yet diverged into significantly different populations (save for the hybridization between species and subspecies, and single-gene color mutations which are very minor with regards to the total number of genes in each bird.).[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]And when you state that “captive ringnecks have not yet diverged” here too the mistake is not taking into account the non coded genetic differences. For if you state that a chicken is different than its wild ancestor; then you are debating the case for non coded genetic differences; rather than against it. And it is non coded genetic make up that is at the root of the Genomics of domestication (and evolution for that matter.) [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]So a ringneck in captivity is far different from its wild counterpart based in part on Mendelian principle and genetic divergence generally. This is to say that a good deal of non coded genes will be different from its “wild” counterpart and this can equally be said of chickens and their wild counterpart(s).[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]I do agree that domestication is different from “taming” a wild animal to be bred into captivity. A West African Elephant is certainly an example of this. But the Golden Pheasants we hold in “captivity” today are variants of the “wild” at a genetic level as well due to man's manipulation of the species. Thus with the Golden Pheasant we may not be able to call it a “true to the bone” domesticated animal but we also cannot simply call it a “tamed wild” species either.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Not necessarily, and that was the point of my post. In the farmer's view, the introduction of some "new blood" from a different species is considered OK if they're able, in subsequent generations, to return the animals to the standards to which they select. From the ornithologists' standpoint, once hybrid stock is introduced into a line, it is forever tainted, even if you can't tell just by looking. [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]I do not think most farmers I know would introduce bloodlines from a separate species to improve an existing bloodline; because interspecies breeding is complex and rarely results in positive results with domestic species. I think a breeder of chickens would crossbreed within the same species (G. domesticus) to improve the production of a strain but certainly I don't know of many breeders attempting to crossbreed interspecies to achieve improved results.[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]As for ornithologists considering a hybrid line “ forever tainted” this is also not entirely true; since even most wild Aves have a good deal of hybridizing amongst them. As well many species in zoos today are hybrids and this too was my point regarding a “pure” Golden Pheasant. Any animal that man has had a hand in, generally, tends not to be the “pure” creature we would once have found in the “wild”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]And I think it all comes down to whether you view the different pheasants as "breeds" (which are man-made populations that conform to man-made standards) or "species" (which are nature-made populations from the wild). I guess it all comes down to whether you want to "create a breed" of bird that mostly resembles its wild ancestor, or if you wish to "replicate the wild species in captivity" which means maintaining a level of purity of bloodlines that goes beyond the needs required by the other desire.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]As[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif] for maintaining a bloodline's purity going “beyond the needs required by the other desire”, I think you give too little credit to the farmer who's man-made environments for his domesticated animals can often put the most well intended zoo to shame. A farmer, who makes their living by maintaing and improving his flocks or herds, tends to invest a great deal more in improving his breeding pens and facilities to maximize his yields. (Just ask Temple Grandin how she's made such a nice living all these years.) [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]Likewise, let us compare the poultry fancier, who spends a tremendous effort to maintain the “purity” of his prized chickens and goes to great lengths to create appropriate environs to do so. So to the aviarist who is interested in rearing pheasants or peafowl, etc. also goes to great lengths to maintain “purity” amongst his birds; hereto putting many zoological endeavors to shame.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I want to add that I'm not knocking either philosophy -- each approaches keeping birds from a different perspective, and each breeds birds to fulfill those desires. There are many buyers who are interested in simply having attractive and interesting birds, and for them, the farmer/rancher/chicken-keeper philosophy satisfies that. Likewise, those who are interested in maintaining in captivity a representative sample of a wild species also have valid interests, though the birds they desire must pass through stricter requirements. The conflict arises when a member of the first group tries to pass off his birds as being able to satisfy the requirements set by the second group. Thus for members of the second group, the Golden pheasants (for example) that are bred in a variety of mutations which arose from hybridization do not meet their criteria as being "true Golden pheasants" despite the fact that the members of the first group consider them to be so.[/FONT]


[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]Here too was my earlier point that farmers and zoologists or ornithologists breeding methods are comparable. Whether breeding for “looks” or “purity” as you say, the breeding methodologies are virtually identical; as is the philosophy of breeding. Whether breeding to improve a breed or maintain a species, breeding practices are much the same. And I do not think there is a “more strict” approach to either “philosophy” that you mention. Whether breeding for improvement or to maintain “wild” lines the philosophy behind the breeding is still the same. [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]When you speak of a “breeder” trying to “pass off” a hybrid as a true “wild” specimen I think you mistake a fraud with a breeder here. Any breeder I have ever known would not lower themselves to this practice. A con artist would certainly do this, but a domestic breeder has as much integrity as any “wild” breeder and will gladly and with pride identify their hybrid for what it is. For why else would they endeavor to create a hybrid if not for the enjoyment and recognition of their accomplishments?[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]And finally, thank you as well for I too enjoy a good discourse on most any subject concerning Aves and I well enjoy a discussion where points of view diverge to a degree from my own. [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]JA[/FONT]

​

 

[destinduck]

Theres a lot of frauds, cons, bad breeders whatever you want to call them out there. Thats pretty much what caused this problem in the first place. I think we can all agree to that. What are "Aves" JA BTW. IDK. LOL!

 

[Boggy Bottom Bantams]

scientific name for " birds"

 

[destinduck]

 

[Boggy Bottom Bantams]

figured you'd like that haha