The Legbar Thread!

[ChicKat]

Thanks to everyone for the observations.

As I said at the beginning the chart is under development, and it is appearances - perhaps since it was a silver-gold slider you could stretch and say that the gold in the first picture (no confusion there right?) is influenced by the removal of gold as it approaches the final image, which is silver and has no gold) -- (that isn't confusing either is it?. Your feedback of why you are confused does help me with the development. The percentages only reflect the appearances -


to my mind it is much more confusing and much more inaccurate to tell someone that their Cream Legbar is gold. (Unless, of course it had the bright burnt orange body feathers and other coloration of the first image)

Being aware that Cream correctly doesn't look silver does protect the Cream Legbar, hopefully, from becoming silver - as people can discern that although the difference is not photograph-able -there is a difference.

So for those who find it confusing...sorry guys...it seemed pretty simple to me. Perhaps that is why Mr. Decmar used the names he did on the Araucana color chart. KPenley - you are saying that if the percentages were removed you would find the chart more useful- if they just had a random identifier? It then looses the ability to jump off the page. (i.e. talk about a percentage that isn't pictured)

Regarding the connection to the Cream Legbar Club---maybe that was a perception leap because I complemented GaryDean26 on his diplomacy and knowledge about poultry, and the Cream Legbar breed - along with the other related breeds...and then there is that Engineer analytical ability.

The Cream Legbar Club didn't originate the chart, has no responsibility for the chart---and in fact most people in the Cream Legbar Club probably haven't seen it - so for those who don't like the chart--- blame me and not the Club. ;O)

Chart isn't endorsed by the Club.

That being said--- I am a member of the Cream Legbar Club--- think it is a great resource - and wanted to remind interested people that the next full member's meeting is August the 5th on line somewhere in Cyberspace and somewhere where you are.

 

[ChicKat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Blackbirds' issue is with the percentage titles regarding gold and nothing to do with the pictures.

I'm also concerned about this, and think it will cause confusion. If the chart is truly for those confused by genetic conversations, and for phenotype only, then there is no reason for "gold" to enter their vocabulary. I'm already confused since the 0-50% birds aren't gold so why would I want to call them gold when comparing them to my Cream birds (I understand that it's just a graphics slide measurement)? Plus any mention of gold could be confusing to judges since we are trying to show them that our birds are a different color. But I do really like the idea of pictures for members/judges/fanciers to compare their birds to for purposes of discussion. Perhaps the percentage gold part could be dropped in conversation and pictures could be referred to as number 10 or 50, etc. That seems less confusing to me, but maybe it's just me. I could be alone and totally out in left field

p.s. Mr. C, with all due respect there are some birds who's pictures could be shared with certain genetic aspects being presented as true due to test breeding results. It's still the number one way judges and old timer fanciers have advised us to figure out what we have.

Here is a thread from Classroom in the Coop - where the discussion covers a lot of ground - but the idea that breeding a Cream Legbar to another chicken without dissecting out all the related genetics is not a scientific level proof. The example that nicalandia had was a Cream Legbar bred with a silver Welsumer -- in the pages of the thread some reflections of why this isn't a genetic proof, and some of the things that would be needed to just 'test mate' the birds. Especially since there are so very many unknowns.

Underlying genetics and test breeding:
http://www.the-coop.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=108802&page=all

 

[KPenley]

Yes, I read most of that discussion last year. And yet, the one geneticist that debated the results of the test you referred to ( offered an opinion, not proof that the results were inconclusive) also recommended test mating.

 

[Dianne88]

I have an egg with a pip!!!!

 

[ChicKat]

Yes, I read most of that discussion last year. And yet, the one geneticist that debated the results of the test you referred to ( offered an opinion, not proof that the results were inconclusive) also recommended test mating.

Yes, and that would be the way to find all the answers. It was recommended to be test mating of knowns - and not unknowns. IT would take a lot of matings to unravel the complexity. To date, I don't believe that has been done. As a consequence, erroneous data may be put forward as accurate. There are a lot of genetics at play, and all the recessives would need to be on the table to be accurate...IMO.

ETA - from the genetics seminar last March with Grant Brereton he identified a cross that was totally heterozygous for all the major genetics. (slips my mind what was crossed---a full sized silky and somethig else)---and with that chicken every gene was an individual gene - no pairs -- so they use them extensively to figure out the genetics that they don't know. There is even a name for it -- and I have a photo somewhere in my conference materials --which are still packed away-- LOL -- Perhaps someone here with genetics expertise knows what it is.

 

[KPenley]

I have an egg with a pip!!!!

Congratulations! best wishes for a great hatch!!!

 

[DoubleMM]

I have an egg with a pip!!!!

Many more to you...

 

[Junibutt]

I have an egg with a pip!!!!

Yeah to some new CCLs

 

[Dianne88]

I have an egg with a pip!!!!

Gotta go to bed, maybe a new baby in the morning!?!

 

[Dianne88]

Gotta go to bed, maybe a new baby in the morning!?!

New baby