Telling blue from lavender and olandsk dwarf chickens

[NatJ]

I think you're right that they're all mottled with only some carrying splash. Splash is black feathers scattered here and there or can other colors splash?

Splash is only black feathers (except that they can be a diluted form of black, so blue or chocolate or lavender; but no red/gold shades)

Dominant white must be in there somewhere to as some of the birds have heavily white heads and chests?View attachment 3017959

I don't think that one has Dominant White.

Dominant White turns black into white, all over the chicken. Since I see black in the wing feathers, I don't think that one has Dominant White.

I think the mostly-white head is just the effect of the mottling gene-- it seems to happen on some chickens but not others, but I've see it on a few chickens and in photos of more chickens, where mottling was the only reasonable explanation.

I've been reading some genetic sites recommended in other posts and was amazed to see how complex chicken genetics are. At this point I'm definitely struggling to remember it all, let alone understand it all and how it ties to my birds.

Yes, it definitely is complicated!

I find this gene table useful when I just need a reminder of what a particular gene does:
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page3.html

There are a bunch of things I sort-of know, but I keep needing to re-check some of the details

 

[ChicksnMore]

Thanks for the link!

So I was reading about dominant white and recessive white last night and if I understand correctly, if it was dominant white there would be some birds that carry 2 genes and end up all white right? If so then yep, couldn't be dominant white. Then I also read about leaky white in dominant white creating marked birds (still trying to find out what leaky white looks like and if recessive can be leaky) and that recessive white in chickens is like recessive white in ducks and masks all colors and about dominant white bred to dominant black can end up blue? That sounds like it'd be a different blue from splash bred blue cause different genes involved? Or does that pairing create a blue bird with splash?...or or...?

Color me confused....lol.

What I really need is a good book or two. Was looking at "Genetics of Chicken Colors" and trying to decide if it's worth the high price. It'd definitely help to have one solid source that can answer all or most of my questions.

At least I know the visual difference between splash and mottled now, and blue and lavender ... and at least I'm pretty sure that the main gene that's creating the look I love is the mottling gene. What it means in breeding will take me longer to fully understand.

I kinda want to throw all the birds together and just let them do their thing, but at the same time, her birds are so versatile in colors yet very uniform at the same time. They're beautiful to me and I'd hate to lose that because I don't know what I'm doing. I don't really care about improving them at this point...I just don't want to destroy what she had going.

I don't have any of her breeding records though her kids keeping and eye out for them and will pass them along if she notices them. I don't even know the meanings of her marking system. I know that one set designates the color category and that one's easy to see.

One of her breeding sets for this year has a rooster and hen that looks very strongly milli fleur with minimal spotting and penciling (think the veining in the feathers is called penciling or is it partridge?) and a hen that has the same colors and markings but with the heavier markings that the other birds have... and I have no idea why she combined these three. I'm guessing it was about keeping the orange base color and increasing the mottling so I'll continue them with that thought in mind.

One of the things I love about these birds is how they change over time. I loved seeing the changes in them when I visited. They start out as very typical little fuzz balls, then get very wild looking barred feathers, then the barring disappears and they get darker with colors and adult feather pattern coming in, then they start getting more and more white over time but never lose the blacks and base colors. If I understand correctly that's a milli fleur trait...so a mottling trait?

I'm having a ton of fun learning all this though! Thank you so much for all the info...you may feel it's a sorta-know, but it's very very helpful.

 

[NatJ]

So I was reading about dominant white and recessive white last night and if I understand correctly, if it was dominant white there would be some birds that carry 2 genes and end up all white right? If so then yep, couldn't be dominant white. Then I also read about leaky white in dominant white creating marked birds (still trying to find out what leaky white looks like and if recessive can be leaky) and that recessive white in chickens is like recessive white in ducks and masks all colors and about dominant white bred to dominant black can end up blue? That sounds like it'd be a different blue from splash bred blue cause different genes involved? Or does that pairing create a blue bird with splash?...or or...?

Um, not quite.

Recessive white is the easiest to understand. Two copies of the recessive white gene make a completely white bird. It does not have leakage of other colors in the feathers. A chicken with one copy of the recessive white gene looks just like a chicken with no copies of it: they show no effects at all.

Breeding splash with black makes blue. Breeding Dominant White with black does NOT make blue. But if someone has a "white laced red" chicken, they may not know whether that "white" is actually Dominant White or Splash. So they can breed that "white laced red" chicken to a chicken with black lacing and get blue lacing (if it was really splash). Or they can get white lacing (if it was really Dominant White.) Or they can possibly get some of each, if the chicken had both Dominant White AND Splash.

Dominant White affects black, but not red. (Two copies may have some effect on red shades, but may not-- I've found conflicting reports on that.) When you have a bird that has the genes to be solid black, but it also has Dominant White, you get a white chicken. If the chicken has only one copy of Dominant White, there may be some leakage (bits of black showing in places. That is sometimes called Paint, and can also look a bit like a Splash chicken.) When a chicken has two copies of Dominant White, it tends to have no black at all-- all black is changed to white.

But Dominant White can only make a chicken "all white" if it would otherwise be all black. When a chicken has the genes for a pattern of black and gold, Dominant White leaves the gold alone and only affects the black.

Examples:
Rhode Island Reds are red with black tails. ISA Brown sexlinks are red with white tails, because they have Dominant White.
White Laced Red Cornish and White Laced Buff Polish both have white lacing (Dominant White) on a chicken that is otherwise red or gold.
Golden Neck Old English Game Bantams have Dominant White (they would otherwise be Mille Fleur colored, but the black has been turned into white.)
Chamois Spitzhaubens have Dominant White (they would otherwise be gold with black spangles, but the black bits are turned into white.)
Black Breasted Red becomes Red Pyle when you add Dominant White.
And so, for quite a lot of varieties of various breeds.

Silver is another gene that makes white on a chicken. Specifically, it changes gold to white. (Gold meaning anything that is red or yellow, and most brown shades as well.) There are quite a lot of chicken varieties that come in a gold version and a silver version (Gold Laced/Silver Laced, Gold Spangled/Silver Spangled, Buff Columbian/Columbian, etc.)
If you cross a gold chicken with a silver one, the silver offspring tend to be rather yellowish, instead of having a nice clean white. It takes some combination of other genes to make the white nice and pretty (no, I don't know what genes.)
Note: unlike the other genes we've been talking about, Silver is on the Z sex chromosome, so it behaves differently in crosses depending on which parent is which color.

Have you played with the chicken calculator?
http://kippenjungle.nl/kruising.html
You can change genes in the dropdown boxes and watch how the picture changes.
(It can calculate offspring from various crosses, but I mostly play with the genes and look at the pictures.)

For the genes I've just been explaining, the symbols are:
Bl (Blue) or bl+ (not-blue)
C+ (allows color) or c (recessive white)
I (Dominant White, which Inhibits black) or i+ (not-Dominant-White)
S (Silver) or s+ (gold)

A capital letter indicates a Dominant gene, a lowercase letter is a recessive gene.
They mostly go in pairs with the same letter (exception: when there are three or more options, the abbreviations get more complicated.)
+ means it's the wild-type gene (found in the Red Jungle Fowl.)
The letter usually has something to do with either the name of the gene, or what it does. (Like S for Silver, or I for Inhibitor of black that we usually call Dominant White.)

What I really need is a good book or two. Was looking at "Genetics of Chicken Colors" and trying to decide if it's worth the high price. It'd definitely help to have one solid source that can answer all or most of my questions.

The prices do tend to be awful
The only chicken genetics book I've actually read is Genetics of the Fowl, by F.B. Hutt
It's available for free here:
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/chla2837819
There's a link to "read item."
Only one chapter actually talks about color genetics, but that same information is mostly getting copied again into the newer books, so if you read it you've probably got half of what any newer book would have anyway.

The rest of what I know, I've picked up here and there, and I've forgotten some of the sources. There were some genetics experts on another forum some years back, and I learned a lot by reading their posts, but I don't think they're still posting.

At least I know the visual difference between splash and mottled now, and blue and lavender ... and at least I'm pretty sure that the main gene that's creating the look I love is the mottling gene. What it means in breeding will take me longer to fully understand.

You are making good progress! I started by learning about the specific genes I was most interested in, then branched out to learn a few more, and the number keeps growing over time.

One nice thing about mottling is that it breeds true because it's a recessive gene: if the mother and the father show mottling, so will all their chicks.*

*except if the chicks are all white, of course. You wouldn't see the mottling on an all-white chicken.

I'm having a ton of fun learning all this though! Thank you so much for all the info...you may feel it's a sorta-know, but it's very very helpful.

I use "sort-of know" for things that sound familiar when I read them, because I know I've read them before, but I have to look them up again to be sure about the details.

There are some things I do know without having to look them up (including most of what you've asked so far.) But sometimes I encounter a new detail that I never heard of before, so I know there are still things out there to learn.

I'm glad you're having fun! I also enjoy chicken genetics, but I've learned that not everyone does (I've got a few family members that are tired of hearing about it... )

 

[NatJ]

The only chicken genetics book I've actually read is Genetics of the Fowl, by F.B. Hutt
It's available for free here:
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/chla2837819
There's a link to "read item."
Only one chapter actually talks about color genetics, but that same information is mostly getting copied again into the newer books, so if you read it you've probably got half of what any newer book would have anyway.

Edit:
Actually, that book may not help you very much.
I just looked at it again, and was surprised how many things I see that are not quite right. Hutt's trying to make single genes explain some things that we now know are due to interactions between genes.

So a newer book might well be better

 

[ChicksnMore]

Um, not quite.

Recessive white is the easiest to understand. Two copies of the recessive white gene make a completely white bird. It does not have leakage of other colors in the feathers. A chicken with one copy of the recessive white gene looks just like a chicken with no copies of it: they show no effects at all.

Breeding splash with black makes blue. Breeding Dominant White with black does NOT make blue. But if someone has a "white laced red" chicken, they may not know whether that "white" is actually Dominant White or Splash. So they can breed that "white laced red" chicken to a chicken with black lacing and get blue lacing (if it was really splash). Or they can get white lacing (if it was really Dominant White.) Or they can possibly get some of each, if the chicken had both Dominant White AND Splash.

Dominant White affects black, but not red. (Two copies may have some effect on red shades, but may not-- I've found conflicting reports on that.) When you have a bird that has the genes to be solid black, but it also has Dominant White, you get a white chicken. If the chicken has only one copy of Dominant White, there may be some leakage (bits of black showing in places. That is sometimes called Paint, and can also look a bit like a Splash chicken.) When a chicken has two copies of Dominant White, it tends to have no black at all-- all black is changed to white.

But Dominant White can only make a chicken "all white" if it would otherwise be all black. When a chicken has the genes for a pattern of black and gold, Dominant White leaves the gold alone and only affects the black.

Examples:
Rhode Island Reds are red with black tails. ISA Brown sexlinks are red with white tails, because they have Dominant White.
White Laced Red Cornish and White Laced Buff Polish both have white lacing (Dominant White) on a chicken that is otherwise red or gold.
Golden Neck Old English Game Bantams have Dominant White (they would otherwise be Mille Fleur colored, but the black has been turned into white.)
Chamois Spitzhaubens have Dominant White (they would otherwise be gold with black spangles, but the black bits are turned into white.)
Black Breasted Red becomes Red Pyle when you add Dominant White.
And so, for quite a lot of varieties of various breeds.

Silver is another gene that makes white on a chicken. Specifically, it changes gold to white. (Gold meaning anything that is red or yellow, and most brown shades as well.) There are quite a lot of chicken varieties that come in a gold version and a silver version (Gold Laced/Silver Laced, Gold Spangled/Silver Spangled, Buff Columbian/Columbian, etc.)
If you cross a gold chicken with a silver one, the silver offspring tend to be rather yellowish, instead of having a nice clean white. It takes some combination of other genes to make the white nice and pretty (no, I don't know what genes.)
Note: unlike the other genes we've been talking about, Silver is on the Z sex chromosome, so it behaves differently in crosses depending on which parent is which color.

Have you played with the chicken calculator?
http://kippenjungle.nl/kruising.html
You can change genes in the dropdown boxes and watch how the picture changes.
(It can calculate offspring from various crosses, but I mostly play with the genes and look at the pictures.)

For the genes I've just been explaining, the symbols are:
Bl (Blue) or bl+ (not-blue)
C+ (allows color) or c (recessive white)
I (Dominant White, which Inhibits black) or i+ (not-Dominant-White)
S (Silver) or s+ (gold)

A capital letter indicates a Dominant gene, a lowercase letter is a recessive gene.
They mostly go in pairs with the same letter (exception: when there are three or more options, the abbreviations get more complicated.)
+ means it's the wild-type gene (found in the Red Jungle Fowl.)
The letter usually has something to do with either the name of the gene, or what it does. (Like S for Silver, or I for Inhibitor of black that we usually call Dominant White.)




The prices do tend to be awful
The only chicken genetics book I've actually read is Genetics of the Fowl, by F.B. Hutt
It's available for free here:
https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/chla2837819
There's a link to "read item."
Only one chapter actually talks about color genetics, but that same information is mostly getting copied again into the newer books, so if you read it you've probably got half of what any newer book would have anyway.

The rest of what I know, I've picked up here and there, and I've forgotten some of the sources. There were some genetics experts on another forum some years back, and I learned a lot by reading their posts, but I don't think they're still posting.


You are making good progress! I started by learning about the specific genes I was most interested in, then branched out to learn a few more, and the number keeps growing over time.

One nice thing about mottling is that it breeds true because it's a recessive gene: if the mother and the father show mottling, so will all their chicks.*

*except if the chicks are all white, of course. You wouldn't see the mottling on an all-white chicken.


I use "sort-of know" for things that sound familiar when I read them, because I know I've read them before, but I have to look them up again to be sure about the details.

There are some things I do know without having to look them up (including most of what you've asked so far.) But sometimes I encounter a new detail that I never heard of before, so I know there are still things out there to learn.

I'm glad you're having fun! I also enjoy chicken genetics, but I've learned that not everyone does (I've got a few family members that are tired of hearing about it... )

That's a good explanation...think I've got it now.

So recessive can not be in the flock at all or an occasional all white bird would be born.
Dominant might be there buts unlikely as there's no birds completely lacking in black or blue.
Silver likewise could be there but since it effects the reds, yellows and browns...it's also unlikely to be there as none of the birds lack those shades.

Recessive white breeds true if cc. Dominant white breeds true if CC, but allows reds, yellows, browns to show and only produces an all white bird on an all black bird.

I really like the Red Pyle's by the way! I breed Yokohama Red Shoulders and they have similar coloring. I don't sell or show and they're an established breed so I never needed to learn a lot about the genes, they're just my pretty babies and I pick some for looks but also for good layers etc...just the birds that please me...but anyways, they carry a modifier that makes their white very pure.

Then there's white and black breedings producing blue. I got that from https://heritagepoultry.org/blog/andalusian-chicken-mediterranean-class.
Then read it again on https://livestockconservancy.org/heritage-breeds/heritage-breeds-list/andalusian-chicken/. I read some more and came across Mendel's incomplete dominance work.

It says pure breeding but states the genes as C so I thought that meant dominant white...now I'm thinking it must mean recessive? I'm guessing there's dominant and recessive forms of black also but don't know anything about black yet. I'm uncertain if I got this right on the blue but think maybe it is. Think the original blues came from these matings and blues since come from splash and black pairings.

I did try the calculator! It looks fun and totally convinced me I need to learn more so I can play with it better...lol.

Thanks for the book link...I'll enjoy reading it even if it doesn't go over how genes interact.

I think I figured out the patterning on the feathers...I think it's quail? And the dark color sprinkled over the base color must be black or blue ands called peppering or is it part of the quail pattern?

I wish I'd started with these birds sooner...I would have really enjoyed talking them over with my friend. I'm glad you're taking the time to share all this with me cause yep, most of my family thinks chickens look their best in the freezer

 

[NatJ]

That's a good explanation...think I've got it now.

So recessive can not be in the flock at all or an occasional all white bird would be born.

There could be a few birds that carry it, and you wouldn't know until they were bred to each other and an all-white chick showed up. But you're right, if no white chicks ever show up it's a fairly safe bet there is no recessive white.

Dominant might be there buts unlikely as there's no birds completely lacking in black or blue.

Correct, if all birds show reasonable amounts of black or blue, you probably do not have Dominant White. Since it is dominant, there is no way for it to hide and pop out later.

Silver likewise could be there but since it effects the reds, yellows and browns...it's also unlikely to be there as none of the birds lack those shades.

Correct, if all birds show some amount of red/yellow/brown, there should no silver in the flock. Since it is also dominant, there is no way for it to hide.

Recessive white breeds true if cc.

Yes.
Not-recessive-white would be CC, and also breed true.

Dominant white breeds true if CC, but allows reds, yellows, browns to show and only produces an all white bird on an all black bird.

Yes, except Dominant White is II, and not-Dominant-White is ii.
(A not-white chicken is probably CC and ii, because it is not recessive white or Dominant White. But it could be Cc ii, carrying recessive white.)

I really like the Red Pyle's by the way! I breed Yokohama Red Shoulders and they have similar coloring. I don't sell or show and they're an established breed so I never needed to learn a lot about the genes, they're just my pretty babies and I pick some for looks but also for good layers etc...just the birds that please me...but anyways, they carry a modifier that makes their white very pure.

Yes, they are very pretty!
They have some interesting (complicated) genetics, too.
Here's an article that talks about what genes they've got:
https://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGP/Phoen/ReederRedShGenetics.html
It's a rather complicated mixture!

Then there's white and black breedings producing blue. I got that from https://heritagepoultry.org/blog/andalusian-chicken-mediterranean-class.

Oh, I think I see what must have happened.

A white chicken can ALSO carry the blue gene, without it being seen.
Black is diluted to blue, but then Dominant White or recessive white makes the chicken look white.

I've read that White Leghorns usually breed true for Dominant White (on an otherwise black chicken), but they also have blue and barring and maybe mottling as well. So if you cross them to other breeds, and interbreed the offspring, you start getting other colors (barred, blue, blue barred, etc.)

I read some more and came across Mendel's incomplete dominance work. View attachment 3018874View attachment 3018875

I think those diagrams are trying to show black, blue, and splash-- but they are saying "white" when they should say "splash." Maybe they think splash are dirty whites??

I also do not know why they are using a C with a superscript letter to indicate the genes, because that is NOT the standard abbreviation for that gene in chickens.

Other than the mis-labeling, that is a fine diagram for black/blue/splash.

It says pure breeding but states the genes as C so I thought that meant dominant white...now I'm thinking it must mean recessive?

C should be not-recessive-white, with c being recessive white (capital vs. lower case letters.) No, that diagram is not referring to either kind of white. It's just mis-labeling splash as "white" and using weird letters.

I'm uncertain if I got this right on the blue but think maybe it is. Think the original blues came from these matings and blues since come from splash and black pairings.

Yes, if the original whites were also carrying the blue gene (even though the breeders didn't know if was there until they got blue offspring.)

Blues come from any of the following matings:
splash x black (100% blue chicks)
blue x blue (50% blue chicks, 25% black, 25% splash)
splash x blue (50% blue chicks, 50% splash)
black x blue (50% blue chicks, 50% black)

I'm guessing there's dominant and recessive forms of black also but don't know anything about black yet.

Black can get complicated.
I would say black is mostly what happens when no other genes interfere.

Every chicken who lacks the blue gene is "black" (not-blue)
Every chicken who lacks the lavender gene is "black" (not-lavender)
Every chicken who lacks the Dominant White gene is "black" (not-Dominant-White)
And so on for not-chocolate, and not-barred, and not-recessive-white, etc.
But of course not all of those chickens actually look black.
A chicken might be lavender (two copies of the lavender gene) but not-blue and not-Dominant-White (so "black" as regards those two genes.)

Each gene has a physical location on the chromosome. That spot is called the "locus" (Latin word for "place.")
At the blue locus, the chicken can have the gene for blue or not-blue. There are only two choices. Each choice is called an "allele." Blue is one allele, not-blue is the other. A chicken gets one from each parent, for a total of two.

But there is a spot called the e-locus that has at least FIVE alleles. They all affect how the black and red are distributed on the chicken. Of course, a chicken can only have two of them at a time, because it gets one from each parent.

At the e-locus, the most dominant allele is called "Extended Black," with the abbreviation E. That gene spreads black over the whole chicken, instead of letting it have a pattern of black and red. ("Extends" the black.) Of the alleles at the e-locus, Extended Black was identified and named first, so all the others have abbreviations that begin with "e" to indicate that they are at the same locus.

The other alleles include E^R, e^Wh, e^b, e+ (and various others-- people keep finding new ones, then discovering that some "new" ones are the same as the already-known ones but others are not.)

If you want to read about the e-locus, it's discussed on both of these pages:
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page3.html
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page2.html

But if any single gene deserves to be called a "black" gene in chickens, it's probably Extended Black.

Of course, a chicken can have the Extended Black gene, and actually be blue all over, or have white barring, or white dots from mottling, or be all white because of Dominant White, or can have any other appearance that is caused by genes affecting black.

(Um, I did say black is complicated....)

I did try the calculator! It looks fun and totally convinced me I need to learn more so I can play with it better...lol.

Thanks for the book link...I'll enjoy reading it even if it doesn't go over how genes interact.

You're welcome! Yes, I enjoy the calculator too!

If you want to play with the genes that are easier to understand in the calculator: start at the BOTTOM of the list. The top few are the ones that affect how the black & red are arranged, and they interact in ways that can be confusing. But further down the list are ones that just change the shade of black, or change the shade of red, or make white lines across the chicken, or something else that is fairly easy to understand.

(Note, I see that "mottled" does not change the picture-- a pity, since it's one of the ones you are most interested in!)

I think I figured out the patterning on the feathers...I think it's quail? And the dark color sprinkled over the base color must be black or blue ands called peppering or is it part of the quail pattern?View attachment 3018890

Um, I don't know for sure. I'm pretty bad at sorting out different patterns.

But wild-type hens (also called Duckwing or Black Breasted Red) usually have stippling (little black dots) on the feathers. And wild-type chicks are striped like chipmunks, too.

I'm afraid I don't know how to tell them apart.

You could post that picture and question in this thread:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/the-ask-anything-to-nicalandia-thread.1509343/
I think that person is fairly good at recognizing patterns, and might be able to tell you what pattern the chicken has to go with the mottling.

I wish I'd started with these birds sooner...I would have really enjoyed talking them over with my friend.

Yes, that would have been great!

I'm glad you're taking the time to share all this with me cause yep, most of my family thinks chickens look their best in the freezer

 

[ChicksnMore]

There could be a few birds that carry it, and you wouldn't know until they were bred to each other and an all-white chick showed up. But you're right, if no white chicks ever show up it's a fairly safe bet there is no recessive white.

Correct, if all birds show reasonable amounts of black or blue, you probably do not have Dominant White. Since it is dominant, there is no way for it to hide and pop out later.


Correct, if all birds show some amount of red/yellow/brown, there should no silver in the flock. Since it is also dominant, there is no way for it to hide.


Yes.
Not-recessive-white would be CC, and also breed true.


Yes, except Dominant White is II, and not-Dominant-White is ii.
(A not-white chicken is probably CC and ii, because it is not recessive white or Dominant White. But it could be Cc ii, carrying recessive white.)


Yes, they are very pretty!
They have some interesting (complicated) genetics, too.
Here's an article that talks about what genes they've got:
https://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGP/Phoen/ReederRedShGenetics.html
It's a rather complicated mixture!


Oh, I think I see what must have happened.

A white chicken can ALSO carry the blue gene, without it being seen.
Black is diluted to blue, but then Dominant White or recessive white makes the chicken look white.

I've read that White Leghorns usually breed true for Dominant White (on an otherwise black chicken), but they also have blue and barring and maybe mottling as well. So if you cross them to other breeds, and interbreed the offspring, you start getting other colors (barred, blue, blue barred, etc.)



I think those diagrams are trying to show black, blue, and splash-- but they are saying "white" when they should say "splash." Maybe they think splash are dirty whites??

I also do not know why they are using a C with a superscript letter to indicate the genes, because that is NOT the standard abbreviation for that gene in chickens.

Other than the mis-labeling, that is a fine diagram for black/blue/splash.


C should be not-recessive-white, with c being recessive white (capital vs. lower case letters.) No, that diagram is not referring to either kind of white. It's just mis-labeling splash as "white" and using weird letters.



Yes, if the original whites were also carrying the blue gene (even though the breeders didn't know if was there until they got blue offspring.)

Blues come from any of the following matings:
splash x black (100% blue chicks)
blue x blue (50% blue chicks, 25% black, 25% splash)
splash x blue (50% blue chicks, 50% splash)
black x blue (50% blue chicks, 50% black)


Black can get complicated.
I would say black is mostly what happens when no other genes interfere.

Every chicken who lacks the blue gene is "black" (not-blue)
Every chicken who lacks the lavender gene is "black" (not-lavender)
Every chicken who lacks the Dominant White gene is "black" (not-Dominant-White)
And so on for not-chocolate, and not-barred, and not-recessive-white, etc.
But of course not all of those chickens actually look black.
A chicken might be lavender (two copies of the lavender gene) but not-blue and not-Dominant-White (so "black" as regards those two genes.)

Each gene has a physical location on the chromosome. That spot is called the "locus" (Latin word for "place.")
At the blue locus, the chicken can have the gene for blue or not-blue. There are only two choices. Each choice is called an "allele." Blue is one allele, not-blue is the other. A chicken gets one from each parent, for a total of two.

But there is a spot called the e-locus that has at least FIVE alleles. They all affect how the black and red are distributed on the chicken. Of course, a chicken can only have two of them at a time, because it gets one from each parent.

At the e-locus, the most dominant allele is called "Extended Black," with the abbreviation E. That gene spreads black over the whole chicken, instead of letting it have a pattern of black and red. ("Extends" the black.) Of the alleles at the e-locus, Extended Black was identified and named first, so all the others have abbreviations that begin with "e" to indicate that they are at the same locus.

The other alleles include E^R, e^Wh, e^b, e+ (and various others-- people keep finding new ones, then discovering that some "new" ones are the same as the already-known ones but others are not.)

If you want to read about the e-locus, it's discussed on both of these pages:
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page3.html
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page2.html

But if any single gene deserves to be called a "black" gene in chickens, it's probably Extended Black.

Of course, a chicken can have the Extended Black gene, and actually be blue all over, or have white barring, or white dots from mottling, or be all white because of Dominant White, or can have any other appearance that is caused by genes affecting black.

(Um, I did say black is complicated....)



You're welcome! Yes, I enjoy the calculator too!

If you want to play with the genes that are easier to understand in the calculator: start at the BOTTOM of the list. The top few are the ones that affect how the black & red are arranged, and they interact in ways that can be confusing. But further down the list are ones that just change the shade of black, or change the shade of red, or make white lines across the chicken, or something else that is fairly easy to understand.

(Note, I see that "mottled" does not change the picture-- a pity, since it's one of the ones you are most interested in!)


Um, I don't know for sure. I'm pretty bad at sorting out different patterns.

But wild-type hens (also called Duckwing or Black Breasted Red) usually have stippling (little black dots) on the feathers. And wild-type chicks are striped like chipmunks, too.

I'm afraid I don't know how to tell them apart.

You could post that picture and question in this thread:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/the-ask-anything-to-nicalandia-thread.1509343/
I think that person is fairly good at recognizing patterns, and might be able to tell you what pattern the chicken has to go with the mottling.


Yes, that would have been great!

There could be a few birds that carry it, and you wouldn't know until they were bred to each other and an all-white chick showed up. But you're right, if no white chicks ever show up it's a fairly safe bet there is no recessive white.

Correct, if all birds show reasonable amounts of black or blue, you probably do not have Dominant White. Since it is dominant, there is no way for it to hide and pop out later.


Correct, if all birds show some amount of red/yellow/brown, there should no silver in the flock. Since it is also dominant, there is no way for it to hide.


Yes.
Not-recessive-white would be CC, and also breed true.


Yes, except Dominant White is II, and not-Dominant-White is ii.
(A not-white chicken is probably CC and ii, because it is not recessive white or Dominant White. But it could be Cc ii, carrying recessive white.)


Yes, they are very pretty!
They have some interesting (complicated) genetics, too.
Here's an article that talks about what genes they've got:
https://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGP/Phoen/ReederRedShGenetics.html
It's a rather complicated mixture!


Oh, I think I see what must have happened.

A white chicken can ALSO carry the blue gene, without it being seen.
Black is diluted to blue, but then Dominant White or recessive white makes the chicken look white.

I've read that White Leghorns usually breed true for Dominant White (on an otherwise black chicken), but they also have blue and barring and maybe mottling as well. So if you cross them to other breeds, and interbreed the offspring, you start getting other colors (barred, blue, blue barred, etc.)



I think those diagrams are trying to show black, blue, and splash-- but they are saying "white" when they should say "splash." Maybe they think splash are dirty whites??

I also do not know why they are using a C with a superscript letter to indicate the genes, because that is NOT the standard abbreviation for that gene in chickens.

Other than the mis-labeling, that is a fine diagram for black/blue/splash.


C should be not-recessive-white, with c being recessive white (capital vs. lower case letters.) No, that diagram is not referring to either kind of white. It's just mis-labeling splash as "white" and using weird letters.



Yes, if the original whites were also carrying the blue gene (even though the breeders didn't know if was there until they got blue offspring.)

Blues come from any of the following matings:
splash x black (100% blue chicks)
blue x blue (50% blue chicks, 25% black, 25% splash)
splash x blue (50% blue chicks, 50% splash)
black x blue (50% blue chicks, 50% black)


Black can get complicated.
I would say black is mostly what happens when no other genes interfere.

Every chicken who lacks the blue gene is "black" (not-blue)
Every chicken who lacks the lavender gene is "black" (not-lavender)
Every chicken who lacks the Dominant White gene is "black" (not-Dominant-White)
And so on for not-chocolate, and not-barred, and not-recessive-white, etc.
But of course not all of those chickens actually look black.
A chicken might be lavender (two copies of the lavender gene) but not-blue and not-Dominant-White (so "black" as regards those two genes.)

Each gene has a physical location on the chromosome. That spot is called the "locus" (Latin word for "place.")
At the blue locus, the chicken can have the gene for blue or not-blue. There are only two choices. Each choice is called an "allele." Blue is one allele, not-blue is the other. A chicken gets one from each parent, for a total of two.

But there is a spot called the e-locus that has at least FIVE alleles. They all affect how the black and red are distributed on the chicken. Of course, a chicken can only have two of them at a time, because it gets one from each parent.

At the e-locus, the most dominant allele is called "Extended Black," with the abbreviation E. That gene spreads black over the whole chicken, instead of letting it have a pattern of black and red. ("Extends" the black.) Of the alleles at the e-locus, Extended Black was identified and named first, so all the others have abbreviations that begin with "e" to indicate that they are at the same locus.

The other alleles include E^R, e^Wh, e^b, e+ (and various others-- people keep finding new ones, then discovering that some "new" ones are the same as the already-known ones but others are not.)

If you want to read about the e-locus, it's discussed on both of these pages:
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page3.html
http://kippenjungle.nl/sellers/page2.html

But if any single gene deserves to be called a "black" gene in chickens, it's probably Extended Black.

Of course, a chicken can have the Extended Black gene, and actually be blue all over, or have white barring, or white dots from mottling, or be all white because of Dominant White, or can have any other appearance that is caused by genes affecting black.

(Um, I did say black is complicated....)



You're welcome! Yes, I enjoy the calculator too!

If you want to play with the genes that are easier to understand in the calculator: start at the BOTTOM of the list. The top few are the ones that affect how the black & red are arranged, and they interact in ways that can be confusing. But further down the list are ones that just change the shade of black, or change the shade of red, or make white lines across the chicken, or something else that is fairly easy to understand.

(Note, I see that "mottled" does not change the picture-- a pity, since it's one of the ones you are most interested in!)


Um, I don't know for sure. I'm pretty bad at sorting out different patterns.

But wild-type hens (also called Duckwing or Black Breasted Red) usually have stippling (little black dots) on the feathers. And wild-type chicks are striped like chipmunks, too.

I'm afraid I don't know how to tell them apart.

You could post that picture and question in this thread:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/the-ask-anything-to-nicalandia-thread.1509343/
I think that person is fairly good at recognizing patterns, and might be able to tell you what pattern the chicken has to go with the mottling.


Yes, that would have been great!

Ok...let's see if I'm understanding. So dominant white and recessive white are two different alleles and a bird can carry both. Dominant white is not C...it's I or i. Recessive white is C or c.

In recessive white...if it's written as CC it means it carrys no recessive white? And Cc would mean it carrys one recessive white gene, cc means it carries two.

In dominant white...II means it carrys two dominant white genes and ii means none.

So are all recessive genes stated as lower case if present and uppercase if absent and dominant genes as uppercase if present and lowercase if absent?

On the Yoko's...that was an interesting article! I'll have to re-read it as my knowledge grows. I knew the Yoko's genes have some negative traits like poor laying...but health issues I've only read about as a briefly mentioned possibility before. My birds tentatively seem a healthy lot at this point. They're from various hatcheries and the number of birds with serious defects was high. Things like scissor beaks, bad legs and higher mortality. It's the only chicken species I've had where the starter chicks I received had some birds with problems like that. I culled those as soon as the problems showed but assumed it was caused by a narrow gene pool in the US. I've tried to mitigate it by ordering from multiple places. Unfortunately there's no one else here raising them so my only choices are mail order. I'm very curious to know if it is about a narrow gene pool or if it's about the genes that set their colors. They're such lovely birds but they're more yard art then utility birds. Still...I love em They're born with these great temperaments. Friendly, curious and easy going even if you never handle them except to catch and move them. Catching them just requires you to stand nearby and act interested in anything... they'll come right up to see what you're up to and stare you in the eye while you bend over to pet them or pick them up. My Dodo chickens...lol.

On the blue color...the blue andulasians are repetitively used as an example of incomplete dominance. My understanding of how incomplete dominance works is very very poor right now...lol. What I'm reading says that it's when two parents with true breeding parents mate and the alleles are expressed as neither dominant or recessive, but rather both dominant genes are expressed in a reduced ratio. If I'm understanding it correctly, the blue breeding charts for chicken breeders would still hold true, it just means that blue is not an actual allele but a named interaction between alleles that modifies how those alleles are expressed.

So it said that if you take two pure breeding black and white birds and mate them, the babies will be 100% blue. I think that would mean splash birds carry two genes for dominant white along with a modifier that creates the splash pattern since recessive white wouldn't allow the splash to show? If so, then the original pure breeding white birds must also have been dominant white...so an all black bird with 2 dominant white alleles. But...(an awful lot I need to learn to get a complete picture)... wouldn't that mean the pure breeding white bird has recessive genes for all black hiding under the dominant white?

Ugh. My brain just fried...lol.

At any rate...that would explain the rarity of blue birds in the original Andulasian flocks. Most of the birds must have carried recessive white. I can't even think about the black side right now...I read through the black alleles but will have to do it again with questions in mind before it sticks.

It would also explain why blue doesn't breed true. If it's not an actual allele but rather a named interaction, you can't bring alleles together to create the color. Hence a black to a splash or a dominant white all white bird to a pure breeding all black bird whose actual genes I have no idea of...lol.

The charts were made by biologist trying to explain incomplete dominance so the way they write it is different...I saw that C and thought I knew what it meant...lol. Think it means complete dominance...but just a guess.

I definitely need to read about e-locus! What you wrote is my first reading of it that I remember...lol. So much of what I read is still Latin to me. So many of the genes create colors and patterns that I've never even seen pictures of so when I read about things like Birchen or Wheaten or Dun...I have to go look up pictures to see what it looks like.

I like that kippenjungle site!

But if I'm reading correctly...what you wrote means there's no extended black since no solid birds in my flock? Wait...no because you said that there's genes that express over it, so it could be there and masked by more then one thing...so harder to end up with an all black bird. So I need to figure out what things can express over it to know. Mottling definitely would since you said its an easy one to get a flock of all mottled?

Extended black written as E means it's dominant? But dominant like white is dominant...where it doesn't mean an all black bird except in certain conditions.

When I read about black....I did note that I tentatively think my birds are e+ or eb or a combination of the two. I'll have to read it again a few times probably. I seem to need that a-ha! moment to make it stick...lol.

I'll try posting pics in that thread. I'm not even sure why, but I really want to know what genes my birds have! If I'm really going to try to set breeding goals with em...it feels like the best place to start.

Thanks again!

 

[nicalandia]

That's a good explanation...think I've got it now.
View attachment 3018874View attachment 3018875

Those Diagram are incorrect.

 

[NatJ]

Ok...let's see if I'm understanding. So dominant white and recessive white are two different alleles and a bird can carry both. Dominant white is not C...it's I or i. Recessive white is C or c.

Yes.

In recessive white...if it's written as CC it means it carrys no recessive white? And Cc would mean it carrys one recessive white gene, cc means it carries two.

Yes.

In dominant white...II means it carrys two dominant white genes and ii means none.

Yes

So are all recessive genes stated as lower case if present and uppercase if absent and dominant genes as uppercase if present and lowercase if absent?

Um, sort of.
The dominant allele gets a capital letter, and the recessive one gets a lowercase letter.
So you just list whichever is present, the dominant or the recessive trait.

Example with blue:
Bl/Bl is splash (two copies of the blue gene, which is dominant.)
bl/bl is black (two copies of the not-blue gene, which is recessive.)
Bl/bl is blue (one copy of the blue gene, and one copy of the not-blue gene.)

Example with Dominant White:
I/I is pure for Dominant White.
I/i has one copy of the Dominant White gene, and one copy of not-Dominant-White
i/i is pure for not-Dominant-White

With many of the genes, we have a name for the mutation (blue, Dominat White, recessive white, etc.) But we don't have a good name for the other form of the gene, the original wild-type form.

I've settled for calling them not-blue, or not-Dominant-White, or not-recessive-white, just to point out that they are a gene at that place, but it's the gene for not having that trait. (I don't know of anyone else who habitually refers to them that way, but people seem to understand well enough what I mean, so I've kept doing it.)

Sometimes the mutation is dominant (Dominant White, Blue) and sometimes it's recessive (recessive white, mottling, lavender.)

On the Yoko's...that was an interesting article! I'll have to re-read it as my knowledge grows. I knew the Yoko's genes have some negative traits like poor laying...but health issues I've only read about as a briefly mentioned possibility before. My birds tentatively seem a healthy lot at this point. They're from various hatcheries and the number of birds with serious defects was high. Things like scissor beaks, bad legs and higher mortality. It's the only chicken species I've had where the starter chicks I received had some birds with problems like that. I culled those as soon as the problems showed but assumed it was caused by a narrow gene pool in the US. I've tried to mitigate it by ordering from multiple places. Unfortunately there's no one else here raising them so my only choices are mail order. I'm very curious to know if it is about a narrow gene pool or if it's about the genes that set their colors. They're such lovely birds but they're more yard art then utility birds. Still...I love em They're born with these great temperaments. Friendly, curious and easy going even if you never handle them except to catch and move them. Catching them just requires you to stand nearby and act interested in anything... they'll come right up to see what you're up to and stare you in the eye while you bend over to pet them or pick them up. My Dodo chickens...lol.

I had a few Yokohamas at one point, too. Mine were all females. I liked them quite well, except that they made a LOT of noise (egg song too many times a day). I gave them to some friends, where they flew out of their pens and got killed by various predators (many other breeds of chickens were staying safely IN the same pens.)

So the Yokohamas I had didn't rate too high on survivability!

On the blue color...the blue andulasians are repetitively used as an example of incomplete dominance. My understanding of how incomplete dominance works is very very poor right now...lol.

Incomplete dominance means that one copy of the blue gene has an effect (turns black to blue) but two copies of the blue gene have a stronger effect (turns black to splash.)

Complete dominance is when one copy of a gene (not-recessive-white) has the very same effect as two copies of that gene. You cannot tell by looking at the chicken whether it carries one copy of the recessive white gene or whether it is pure for not-recessive-white.

So it said that if you take two pure breeding black and white birds and mate them, the babies will be 100% blue. I think that would mean splash birds carry two genes for dominant white along with a modifier that creates the splash pattern since recessive white wouldn't allow the splash to show? If so, then the original pure breeding white birds must also have been dominant white...so an all black bird with 2 dominant white alleles. But...(an awful lot I need to learn to get a complete picture)... wouldn't that mean the pure breeding white bird has recessive genes for all black hiding under the dominant white?

I think they had splash birds, and mistakenly thought they had white birds. (So they crossed a splash with a black and got blue-- no surprise there!) That is the simplest explanation that covers the "facts" in the story.

Or they had a bird that was splash, but looked white because it also had one copy of the Dominant White gene. So when they crossed it with a black bird, they got some white chicks (Dominant White, also genetically blue but you can' t see the blue) and some blue chicks (no Dominant White, so you are able to see the blue.)

Or they could possibly have had birds that were white from recessive white, but also splash. Crossing those to a black bird would have given blue chickens (black x splash = blue, and recessive white x not-recessive white gives birds that are not white.) Or to use symbols, the chicks from such a cross would be Bl/bl C/c.

But I think they most likely had splash birds and were CALLING them "white."

Yes, a "white" bird created with Dominant White is genetically an all-black bird (so no red can show), and then the black is turned to white by Dominant White.

Ugh. My brain just fried...lol.

You seem to be grasping a lot of this very quickly, so your brain probably is working very hard!

At any rate...that would explain the rarity of blue birds in the original Andulasian flocks. Most of the birds must have carried recessive white. I can't even think about the black side right now...I read through the black alleles but will have to do it again with questions in mind before it sticks.

Yes, black can be complicated!

It would also explain why blue doesn't breed true. If it's not an actual allele but rather a named interaction, you can't bring alleles together to create the color. Hence a black to a splash or a dominant white all white bird to a pure breeding all black bird whose actual genes I have no idea of...lol.

Blue is the name for an actual allele. It just happens to be incompletely dominant, so only one copy of the blue allele is needed to make a chicken look "blue."

Dominant White is a separate gene, at a different locus.
Blue is much easier if you leave Dominant White out of the picture.

The charts were made by biologist trying to explain incomplete dominance so the way they write it is different...I saw that C and thought I knew what it meant...lol. Think it means complete dominance...but just a guess.

Dominant genes get capital letters, whether they are completely dominant or incompletely dominant. Recessive genes get lowercase letters.

I definitely need to read about e-locus! What you wrote is my first reading of it that I remember...lol. So much of what I read is still Latin to me. So many of the genes create colors and patterns that I've never even seen pictures of so when I read about things like Birchen or Wheaten or Dun...I have to go look up pictures to see what it looks like.

The e-locus is definitely interesting, but also complicated!
It affects the adult color of the chicken, but also the color of the down when the chicks hatch. And with at least 5 alleles, and many ways to combine them, and many other changes caused by other genes-- it can be very hard to figure out!

I like that kippenjungle site!

I've learned a lot from it too!

But if I'm reading correctly...what you wrote means there's no extended black since no solid birds in my flock? Wait...no because you said that there's genes that express over it, so it could be there and masked by more then one thing...so harder to end up with an all black bird. So I need to figure out what things can express over it to know. Mottling definitely would since you said its an easy one to get a flock of all mottled?

From what you have described of your birds, you probably do not have Extended Black in your flock.

--Extended Black chicks are often colored like little penguins, in black and yellow.

If you want to look up pictures, here are examples of some chickens that have Extended Black:
Barred Rock and Cuckoo Marans (white barring on the black)
Blue Cuckoo Marans (blue gene dilutes the black, and white barring on that.)
Mottled Ancona (mottled gene on the black)
Lavender Orpingon (lavender gene dilutes the black)
Chocolate Orpington (chocolate gene dilutes the black)
Pearl Old English Game Bantam (lavender gene dilutes the black, AND mottled gene makes white dots.)
White Leghorns (Dominant White changes the black to white. But they often have blue, barring, and various other genes too-- it's like someone stacked up every possible gene that could make black lighter or remove it in places, and put them all in the same chickens to make them REALLY white!)

Extended black written as E means it's dominant? But dominant like white is dominant...where it doesn't mean an all black bird except in certain conditions.

Extended Black written as E means it is dominant over the other alleles at the e-locus.

Dominant White written as I means it is dominant over other alleles at the i-locus.

Recessive white written as c means it is recessive to other alleles at the c-locus.

Whether a gene is dominant or recessive at its own locus does not tell you how it interacts with genes at a different locus.

When I read about black....I did note that I tentatively think my birds are e+ or eb or a combination of the two. I'll have to read it again a few times probably. I seem to need that a-ha! moment to make it stick...lol.

I think you are likely to be right about them being e+ or eb at the e-locus, but I'm not positive either.

I'll try posting pics in that thread. I'm not even sure why, but I really want to know what genes my birds have! If I'm really going to try to set breeding goals with em...it feels like the best place to start.

I've had times when I really wanted to know what genes something had, so I certainly understand that!

 

[NatJ]

Those Diagram are incorrect.

Yes, those diagrams are incorrect the way they are.

To be correct, they would have to show a splash chicken instead of a white one, and would need the abbreviations fixed too.