Peafowl Genetics for Dummies (in other words us)

[frenchblackcopper]

I'm not even a small breeder by any scale AugeredIN,,but when I get home from work,,do my hours worth of chores, get a hot bowl of chili I'll take my best guesstimate.

 

[BYC-user-174785]

I am not going to start talking about which one I believe is correct until we get some participation! Honestly, I could be wrong anyway. I think it is open for debate.

I will go ahead and throw a bomb out there. White is not a color, it is a pattern.

Anyone want to call me out on that? My evidence is as follows: Every known color mutation of peafowl can exist as a white bird. I will also add by personal experience that the expression of white is affected by other "markers". I don't know of any color mutation that is known to do so.

I agree that white is a pattern. I finally figured out what my white peacock was this year. I believe he is a White India Blue Split Cameo since I raised two cameo hens this year from hen, but none last with the same pairing.

 

[AugeredIn]

So one could have a bronze that's white or a white spalding? Sorry if this is too simple a question for this thread.

There are no questions too simple.

Yes, you can have a bronze that is white or any other color that is white.

 

[AugeredIn]

So i think it'd be the top box ....I'm guessing, but then pied and WE is also a pattern like white? Because a white x any color can't produce pied unless they're split.

It is very commonly held by people with WAY more experience than me that no breeding of any two white birds can produce pied. But does that mean either representation is incorrect? I don't think so but I need to ponder on it.

 

[AugeredIn]

I'm not even a small breeder by any scale AugeredIN,,but when I get home from work,,do my hours worth of chores, get a hot bowl of chili I'll take my best guesstimate.

You are way to modest. We know better.

 

[Arbor]

Sorry, slowly getting into this post...are you asking which would be the correct way of writing that bird is pied white-eyed? I'll go into more depth as soon as I get the answer, this way I can be sure to answer the question as fully as possible in one post.

 

[Arbor]

Okay, while going over the question again, I get what you are trying to apply. In essence, both could be correct. I too have always been a firm believer in the white-as-a-pattern. The first one allows you to more clearly identify multiple markers of each individual marker, however, some "rules" must be put in place. Since most are comfortable in the idea that the white marker occupies the same location as the pied marker, it needs to be said that a bird cannot carry two of each these markers, or two of one marker and one of the other marker. This is where your second example can shine...in it you can only place two markers, so the possibility of making the mistake of a double copy of each (or the double copy of one and single copy of the other) is impossible. However, you'd have to specify in the box which markers are present. Does this make sense, or am I talking out my a^#@? The principles of the first can be extended into colour as well, but we'll leave that for another example.

 

[3BirdGirlz]

Okay, while going over the question again, I get what you are trying to apply. In essence, both could be correct. I too have always been a firm believer in the white-as-a-pattern. The first one allows you to more clearly identify multiple markers of each individual marker, however, some "rules" must be put in place. Since most are comfortable in the idea that the white marker occupies the same location as the pied marker, it needs to be said that a bird cannot carry two of each these markers, or two of one marker and one of the other marker. This is where your second example can shine...in it you can only place two markers, so the possibility of making the mistake of a double copy of each (or the double copy of one and single copy of the other) is impossible. However, you'd have to specify in the box which markers are present. Does this make sense, or am I talking out my a^#@? The principles of the first can be extended into colour as well, but we'll leave that for another example.

I like your explanation. I'm just hoping that's what Augeredin is getting at....or hope he explains so I can understand . I get genetics some, dominant and recessive, as I use it at work..but that's in people not Pea colors. Love learning

 

[Yoda]

So Frenchy did you miss me! I broke my wrist and have been off for a while LOL Getting surgery on the 21st to remove bone pieces from it - sucks when you get old LOL

 

[AugeredIn]

Okay, while going over the question again, I get what you are trying to apply. In essence, both could be correct. I too have always been a firm believer in the white-as-a-pattern. The first one allows you to more clearly identify multiple markers of each individual marker, however, some "rules" must be put in place. Since most are comfortable in the idea that the white marker occupies the same location as the pied marker, it needs to be said that a bird cannot carry two of each these markers, or two of one marker and one of the other marker. This is where your second example can shine...in it you can only place two markers, so the possibility of making the mistake of a double copy of each (or the double copy of one and single copy of the other) is impossible. However, you'd have to specify in the box which markers are present. Does this make sense, or am I talking out my a^#@? The principles of the first can be extended into colour as well, but we'll leave that for another example.

Now we have some thinking going on! To be clear, only one of the two representations can be correct, not both. You can't arbitrarily assign rules. Your argument above (Highlighted in bold) requires the first representation to be incorrect. There are two markers at each location. In the first representation pied and white occupy different locations. In the second one pied and white must share so you have the options as follows:

PIED/WHITE PIED/WHITE PIED/WHITE PIED/WHITE PIED/WHITE PIED/WHITE
x/W x/P W/W P/P W/P x/x

It does not matter whether the x (empty marker box) is first or second. It just means that there is an empty marker box. The order of P and W also does not matter.

Obviously the first two possibilities above are split white and split pied. The third possibility is obviously a white bird. I suggest the fourth bird is dark pied and the fifth is pied but not necessarily loud pied.

You should note that you cannot have a bird split for both white and pied under this representation.