Not quite a "what breed", but more of a "why"

[Angeleyes707]

Thanks in (large) part to this site, I got curious when my supposed hen started crowing, did some digging, and found out that the pictured "Ameraucana hen" was actually an Easter Egger Rooster. However, he seems to match pretty much every description I can find of Ameraucanas, down to the white/light underside of the feet. I would really appreciate some input on how folks on these forums know from sight an easter egger from an Ameraucana. Details would really be appreciated, as it has really been bugging me that I can't tell the difference with him!!

 

[oldhenlikesdogs]

He's an Easter egger. Ameraucana only come in certain colors and have slate colored legs. All other colors and those with greenish legs are Easter eggers.

 

[sourland]

He is not one of the recognized colors for an Ameracauna.

 

[Angeleyes707]

And what if Ameraucanas are from a mixed flock? What would make him an Easter egger if they still remain true to blue eggs? (I cannot verify eggs on him or the other I bought, as they are only 10 weeks along, and I did not hatch them) Just trying to figure things out! I just ordered Ameraucanas from McMurray hatchery, who says they run a mixed flock of them, not bred for color, but bred for the egg color. Would they not be considered Ameraucanas simply because they are not bred along color lines? That seems odd to me. If I breed a red cow to a black bull of the same breed, it is still considered and registerable as that breed, although it make come out one or the other, or mixed.

 

[Angeleyes707]

So should the legs be more like my Hamburgs? Or Phoenixes?

 

[21hens-incharge]

http://ameraucanabreedersclub.org/standard.html

http://ameraucanabreedersclub.org/faq.html

A couple helpful links.

To get true Ameraucana one needs to locate a reputable breeder. Hatcheries sell Easter Eggers as Ameraucana and often change the spelling slightly.

Sad but it is true.

 

[Angeleyes707]

Interesting that their site doesn't mention leg color. I am still coming back to Ameraucana with this rooster in all but being sure of the egg gene... And with McMurray Hatchery's claim that all of theirs breed true for blue eggs, they would be true Ameraucanas. Still reading...

 

[Angeleyes707]

Huh. Ok. Thanks for the links! Finally found the pictures!!! Seems that to be registerable, they have to be bred along color lines, but they also acknowledge some crosses of the colors, apparently. I'll be good with my mutt Ameraucanas from McMurray. I want blue eggs, not show birds! I certainly am not picky that they have to be "acknowledged" by a breeding group (I deal with enough of that stuff in the horse world!!) Thanks again for the info - good links to read up on what the standards are! (And pictures are a bonus!!)

 

[21hens-incharge]

Not a single bird here meets the "breed standard" but they sure are fun.

Heck they don't know they aren't super models.

 

[BantyChooks]

There is a book called the American Standard of Perfection. It details shape and colour requirements for Ameraucanas, among many other breeds. Egg colour is merely one facet of things. Breed standards include comb type, colour, angle of tail, breadth of back, number of toenails, depth of breast, colour of beak—every single aspect. A bird doesn't—can't, really—have to be perfectly aligned with every single one of these things, but they have to be at least recognizable as the same thing. It isn't supposed to be a classist system, it's merely inventing a standard that one can use to distinguish particular genetic phenotypes from each other. There's a line of perfection, and a width of accepted deviation; In this case, despite the names involved, the hatchery "Ameraucanas" don't fit in that width. Are they genetically related and/or somewhat similar in looks? Yes. But not enough.

I'm going to leave out the whole mess of non-standard accepted breeds (which are still breeds in their own right.) Also, sexlinks, because then trying to explain things just hurts my head. For purposes of explanation, it's easier to pretend the SOP has all of the chicken breeds that exist. Even if you didn't ignore them, non-standard breeds and varieties still breed true, mostly; you can predict what's going to be produced. Easter Eggers, on the other hand, throw random sets of them. They do have a 'look' to them but they aren't uniform and therefore can't even be given the term 'variety' in a proper sense. (There are exceptions in the typey breeds, but again, not APA accepted exceptions.)

If you mixed varieties, then it pretty much comes down to sematics. You could call it a mutt. Or you could call it an EE, if it lays blue eggs. There's controversy over what all falls under that label. Some people say anything not a purebred Ameraucana (or other breed that lays blue) is an EE. I happen to disagree because I think the hatchery EEs have a certain phenotype set; putting, say, my Sultan cross that lays blue under that umbrella seems wrong.

If you kept breeding mixes together again and again until all they had left was the blue egg, I don't think they could truly be called Ameraucanas at that point no matter what wording you used. With birds, conformity to standard and ability to pass that on to their offspring matters more than pedigree. That's why some people can re-make certain varieties and still call them as such. Take Partridge Chantecler bantams, for instance. A lot of the ones I can find for sale now were mutts not many generations back, but they've been selectively bred now so that they breed true to their standard. Now, if you tried to do that with horses, you'd be run out of town with pitchforks.

The hatchery EEs, the kind you have---Ameraucanas were actually bred from them, not the other way around, if I have my history correct. They're simply the line that the genetics came from. I think they're from South America, originally? I forget. I don't have the links right here. Perhaps a comparable example would be a cross between a Leghorn and a Rock. Maybe throw some Wyandotte in there for good measure. If you kept all of them without culling for uniformity, and kept doing that for generations, you'd get something similar in nature to an EE. A typey mutt. If you took some of those birds out of the breeding pool, and bred and culled offspring until they were standard in colour and type, you could say it was a breed. But, even if some of the mixes you kept looked similar, they wouldn't be 'that breed' because they don't hatch chicks that look like them. Make sense? These aren't mixed, though, in a technical sense, because they were never bred true. To my knowledge, at least—the info out there is spotty. Hopefully one of the ways I tried to say it helps you. It took me a while to figure out too. I don't know which group used the term Ameraucana first. Some places call theirs Americanas. Either way, the distinction they make about them not being bred to even the minimal breed standard their other breeds are, makes it pretty clear that they're not the same thing you see in show rings.

And what if Ameraucanas are from a mixed flock? What would make him an Easter egger if they still remain true to blue eggs? (I cannot verify eggs on him or the other I bought, as they are only 10 weeks along, and I did not hatch them) Just trying to figure things out! I just ordered Ameraucanas from McMurray hatchery, who says they run a mixed flock of them, not bred for color, but bred for the egg color. Would they not be considered Ameraucanas simply because they are not bred along color lines? That seems odd to me. If I breed a red cow to a black bull of the same breed, it is still considered and registerable as that breed, although it make come out one or the other, or mixed.

Chickens aren't the same as cows. What constitutes a breed or colour is different across species.

I could be wrong on some of this, but it is true to the best of my knowledge. Take it with a grain of salt.