Sold as “Ameraucana”? Roosters?

[cherrynberry]

https://www.gardenista.com/posts/free-range-chicken-gardens/ This book.

Can you take a screenshot when it is mentioned? I cant seem to find it...

Also where are EEs recongized in?

 

[InterestingChickens]

Now thats new! Never heard of that one before. I am taking about being recongized in the APA.

Yes, just thought books like this might be where Timberline Home stead got their information from. Again, not to put the book down - it's a pretty good book for tips.

​

 

[InterestingChickens]

Can you take a screenshot when it is mentioned? I cant seem to find it...

Also where are EEs recongized in?

I'll go get a picture now. EE's aren't actually mentioned as a 'breed', but classified non - standed by poultry associations.

 

[InterestingChickens]

- Free Range Chicken Gardens

 

[Painted Calls]

View attachment 2799548
- Free Range Chicken Gardens

Good grief.

@EmmaRainboe check this out.

 

[NatJ]

View attachment 2799548
- Free Range Chicken Gardens

It would be nice if the person who wrote that could spell properly. There is no "i" in the correct spelling of Ameraucana.

@InterestingChickens, that description of Araucana is appropriate for the USA, but I notice you're in Australia. Araucanas there have muff & beard instead of ear tufts, they have a crest on top of their head, and they are also allowed to have tails (rumpless is accepted, but not required).
http://www.openpoultrystandards.com/Araucana

 

[InterestingChickens]

It would be nice if the person who wrote that could spell properly. There is no "i" in the correct spelling of Ameraucana.

@InterestingChickens, that desctiption of Araucana is appropriate for the USA, but I notice you're in Australia. Araucanas there have muff & beard instead of ear tufts, they have a crest on top of their head, and they are also allowed to have tails (rumpless is accepted, but not required).
http://www.openpoultrystandards.com/Araucana

Yes, I am aware that the Araucana description is correct according to the APA. The thing about this book, that is wrong, is they don't even recognise the breed Ameraucana. They also describe the 'Americana' as having blue legs. Even though 'Americana' is just another name for EE's, confusing people.

 

[NatJ]

Yes, I am aware that the Araucana description is correct according to the APA. The confusing thing about this book, that is wrong is they don't even recognise the breed Ameraucana.

You mean the one I linked to? That looks to be a site for Australian poultry standards.
If Ameraucana is an American creation, and fairly recent, I'm not surprised to find them unrecognized in Australia.

The American version of the Araucana requires both ear tufts (deadly to any chick that inherits two copies of the gene, so you can never get it true breeding) and rumpless (which also presents breeding problems.) So the Americans "needed" the Ameraucana as a blue-egg-layer that was easier to breed (muff/beard instead of ear tufts, tails instead of rumpless). The Australian version of the Araucana has muff/beard (like Ameraucana) rather than the problematic ear tufts, and rumpless is optional. So the Ameraucana is not "needed" the same way it was in America.

Edit to add: oh, I just realized you mean the the one you were quoting. No, it's just a spelling error. If you put in "Ameraucana" every place they said "Americana," then their information would be correct. They are trying to recognize Ameraucana, and they do give correct information (muff/beard, pea comb, skin color, leg color.)

 

[InterestingChickens]

You mean the one I linked to? That looks to be a site for Australian poultry standards.
If Ameraucana is an American creation, and fairly recent, I'm not surprised to find them unrecognized in Australia.

The American version of the Araucana requires both ear tufts (deadly to any chick that inherits two copies of the gene, so you can never get it true breeding) and rumpless (which also presents breeding problems.) So the Americans "needed" the Ameraucana as a blue-egg-layer that was easier to breed (muff/beard instead of ear tufts, tails instead of rumpless). The Australian version of the Araucana has muff/beard (like Ameraucana) rather than the problematic ear tufts, and rumpless is optional. So the Ameraucana is not "needed" the same way it was in America.

Edit to add: oh, I just realized you mean the the one you were quoting. No, it's just a spelling error. If you put in "Ameraucana" every place they said "Americana," then their information would be correct. They are trying to recognize Ameraucana, and they do give correct information (muff/beard, pea comb, skin color, leg color.)

Like @cherrynberry said the legs are supposed to be slate, not blue, as it says in the book. But, yes I do get what you are saying.

 

[NatJ]

Like @cherrynberry said the legs are supposed to be slate, not blue

I've seen that leg color called slate, blue, or "slate blue." I think the terms are used interchangeably.