Good luck!
All you need is one, right? Hoping for a cockeral for you.
What's wrong with their feathers?
- Thread starter Jubaby
- Start date
No, mine is a barred olive egger sport. (dangit)
If this turned out to be a new feather characteristic, I'd call them Avecas, in honor of the person posting the info on their origin. (suck up, I know. I just think your name sounds cool)
If this turned out to be a new feather characteristic, I'd call them Avecas, in honor of the person posting the info on their origin. (suck up, I know. I just think your name sounds cool)
Wow. Those are beautiful. I may see if I can a cross like that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I had EE and Onagadori crosses and they turned out beautiful. They look like EE's with long feathers. I had a bunch of chicks I gave away that where aracuna/silkie/onagadori. They turned out beautiful also. The only traid of the silkie they had where some had the black skin and 5 toes, some had feathers on their legs. All of them had the long feathers also. The lady that got them sent me pics and made me wish I had kept them.
I had EE and Onagadori crosses and they turned out beautiful. They look like EE's with long feathers. I had a bunch of chicks I gave away that where aracuna/silkie/onagadori. They turned out beautiful also. The only traid of the silkie they had where some had the black skin and 5 toes, some had feathers on their legs. All of them had the long feathers also. The lady that got them sent me pics and made me wish I had kept them.
- Aug 18, 2008
- 1,433
- 11
- 171
pips&peeps :
Quote:
I think the point alice is trying to make is that she can find no reference book or article to verify that quote. I have sent the quote to Gary Ramey who has been breeding araucanas before most of us were born, and asked him if he could verify it in any of the literature he had or has read.
Thanks Jean. If anyone would have read of 'Prado and Latcham' I'd hope it would be Gary.
I feel like I'm insane for asking if anyone has read Prado/Latcham, or seen their names in any other place than the araucanabreeder.freeservers link. I want to apologize again to Aveca if I've offended them - I don't know why it keeps seeming like a battle every time I question the sources of their links. It's not a personal attack on anyone, and certainly not on Aveca who did not write the text on that web page. Shouldn't we always be looking for the most correct and true information though? Part of that search is questioning the source of the information we are reading.
SteveH - I promise, I wouldn't be offended by your ideas and theories - after all, all any of us has are theories at this point. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm far from an ultimate expert, I enjoy reading everything I can find, on all breeds of chickens. It will always be a learning process.
Quote:
I think the point alice is trying to make is that she can find no reference book or article to verify that quote. I have sent the quote to Gary Ramey who has been breeding araucanas before most of us were born, and asked him if he could verify it in any of the literature he had or has read.
Thanks Jean. If anyone would have read of 'Prado and Latcham' I'd hope it would be Gary.
I feel like I'm insane for asking if anyone has read Prado/Latcham, or seen their names in any other place than the araucanabreeder.freeservers link. I want to apologize again to Aveca if I've offended them - I don't know why it keeps seeming like a battle every time I question the sources of their links. It's not a personal attack on anyone, and certainly not on Aveca who did not write the text on that web page. Shouldn't we always be looking for the most correct and true information though? Part of that search is questioning the source of the information we are reading.
SteveH - I promise, I wouldn't be offended by your ideas and theories - after all, all any of us has are theories at this point. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm far from an ultimate expert, I enjoy reading everything I can find, on all breeds of chickens. It will always be a learning process.
Quote:
I don't know about the rest of it, but the book is listed here in one of the special collections at the National Agricultural Library in their American Poultry Historical Society papers.
Second listing in Box 4 of 59
Quick Viewhttp://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...H0RJ7y&sig=AHIEtbSE83M8Y-4ccy5iLVzeHR7E1lOwdg
PDFhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/collectionsguide/skinner/153PDF.pdf
Main Page of the NAL http://www.nal.usda.gov/
Not currently available but here are two other links.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Araucana-poulterers-handbook-David-Caudill/dp/B0006YHAV2
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL15075543M/Araucana_poulterers_handbook
I also found some more recent stuff like what aveca was talking about. I'll post links tomorrow.
I don't know about the rest of it, but the book is listed here in one of the special collections at the National Agricultural Library in their American Poultry Historical Society papers.
Second listing in Box 4 of 59
Quick Viewhttp://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...H0RJ7y&sig=AHIEtbSE83M8Y-4ccy5iLVzeHR7E1lOwdg
PDFhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/collectionsguide/skinner/153PDF.pdf
Main Page of the NAL http://www.nal.usda.gov/
Not currently available but here are two other links.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Araucana-poulterers-handbook-David-Caudill/dp/B0006YHAV2
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL15075543M/Araucana_poulterers_handbook
I also found some more recent stuff like what aveca was talking about. I'll post links tomorrow.
Last edited:
Quote:
In general , I believe all so called mutations are actually deeply recessive and comparatively rare genetic material being passed on over the years . I can't quote a reference , but I know I've read a theory that amoung every species and its related species there remains most if not all of the same genetic information of its original ancestors . Therefore , under the right circumstances , it is possible though not probable to breed back to the original . [ No matter if the original was a creation of God or the result of random mutations outlined in the the theory of evolution ] The first time I read that theory I was relieved that a more educated person than myself had arrived at the same conclusion LOL .
I do know that recessive genes frequently defy all odds and resurface after generations of attempts to understand and/or eliminate them . I never learned of the geneticly frayed feather untill reading this thread , but observation of F1s split for silkie make me ponder the possibility of the two being related . Also I noted that Julie's new breed have walnut combs , and it seems too much of a coincident that this trait would crop out as a true mutation along with the change in feathers . There are other species of both wild and domestic birds recorded with silkied feathers [ or perhaps frayed judging from their appearence ] leading me to believe that the known genetic theory on the silkied feather is only partially correct . Mathmaticly , a true mutation [ if such a thing exists ] would not occur often enough for it to be observed in recorded history , let alone observed in several feathered species during my life time . Personally I would suspicion a Silkie cross within the past 5 to 10 years , but would not rule out the possibility that it was a recessive gene carried down through another source ; a gene necessary for the "theory of adaption " of a " created " species to a changing environment rather than a random " mutation " of an " evolved species " .
So " What's wrong with my chicken's feathers ? " could be answered with " Nothing , some chickens carry hidden recessive genes necessary to fit a dry environment where flight is not an advantage . " Hopefully I have not opened a can of worms , I know my ideas or beliefs often offend .
In general , I believe all so called mutations are actually deeply recessive and comparatively rare genetic material being passed on over the years . I can't quote a reference , but I know I've read a theory that amoung every species and its related species there remains most if not all of the same genetic information of its original ancestors . Therefore , under the right circumstances , it is possible though not probable to breed back to the original . [ No matter if the original was a creation of God or the result of random mutations outlined in the the theory of evolution ] The first time I read that theory I was relieved that a more educated person than myself had arrived at the same conclusion LOL .
I do know that recessive genes frequently defy all odds and resurface after generations of attempts to understand and/or eliminate them . I never learned of the geneticly frayed feather untill reading this thread , but observation of F1s split for silkie make me ponder the possibility of the two being related . Also I noted that Julie's new breed have walnut combs , and it seems too much of a coincident that this trait would crop out as a true mutation along with the change in feathers . There are other species of both wild and domestic birds recorded with silkied feathers [ or perhaps frayed judging from their appearence ] leading me to believe that the known genetic theory on the silkied feather is only partially correct . Mathmaticly , a true mutation [ if such a thing exists ] would not occur often enough for it to be observed in recorded history , let alone observed in several feathered species during my life time . Personally I would suspicion a Silkie cross within the past 5 to 10 years , but would not rule out the possibility that it was a recessive gene carried down through another source ; a gene necessary for the "theory of adaption " of a " created " species to a changing environment rather than a random " mutation " of an " evolved species " .
So " What's wrong with my chicken's feathers ? " could be answered with " Nothing , some chickens carry hidden recessive genes necessary to fit a dry environment where flight is not an advantage . " Hopefully I have not opened a can of worms , I know my ideas or beliefs often offend .
Quote:
In general , I believe all so called mutations are actually deeply recessive and comparatively rare genetic material being passed on over the years . I can't quote a reference , but I know I've read a theory that amoung every species and its related species there remains most if not all of the same genetic information of its original ancestors . Therefore , under the right circumstances , it is possible though not probable to breed back to the original . [ No matter if the original was a creation of God or the result of random mutations outlined in the the theory of evolution ] The first time I read that theory I was relieved that a more educated person than myself had arrived at the same conclusion LOL .
I do know that recessive genes frequently defy all odds and resurface after generations of attempts to understand and/or eliminate them . I never learned of the geneticly frayed feather untill reading this thread , but observation of F1s split for silkie make me ponder the possibility of the two being related . Also I noted that Julie's new breed have walnut combs , and it seems too much of a coincident that this trait would crop out as a true mutation along with the change in feathers . There are other species of both wild and domestic birds recorded with silkied feathers [ or perhaps frayed judging from their appearence ] leading me to believe that the known genetic theory on the silkied feather is only partially correct . Mathmaticly , a true mutation [ if such a thing exists ] would not occur often enough for it to be observed in recorded history , let alone observed in several feathered species during my life time . Personally I would suspicion a Silkie cross within the past 5 to 10 years , but would not rule out the possibility that it was a recessive gene carried down through another source ; a gene necessary for the "theory of adaption " of a " created " species to a changing environment rather than a random " mutation " of an " evolved species " .
So " What's wrong with my chicken's feathers ? " could be answered with " Nothing , some chickens carry hidden recessive genes necessary to fit a dry environment where flight is not an advantage . " Hopefully I have not opened a can of worms , I know my ideas or beliefs often offend .
Steve that was beautifully said. Mutations arise rarely and are often lethal in whatever form they might take. In this situation I also believe that the feathering is caused by recessive genes just because the two original birds from Jubaby's first breeding are out of the same clutch of eggs. Maybe if Jubaby could isolate the original parents and gather eggs from them she might get more of these strangely feathered, Ameraucanas.
In general , I believe all so called mutations are actually deeply recessive and comparatively rare genetic material being passed on over the years . I can't quote a reference , but I know I've read a theory that amoung every species and its related species there remains most if not all of the same genetic information of its original ancestors . Therefore , under the right circumstances , it is possible though not probable to breed back to the original . [ No matter if the original was a creation of God or the result of random mutations outlined in the the theory of evolution ] The first time I read that theory I was relieved that a more educated person than myself had arrived at the same conclusion LOL .
I do know that recessive genes frequently defy all odds and resurface after generations of attempts to understand and/or eliminate them . I never learned of the geneticly frayed feather untill reading this thread , but observation of F1s split for silkie make me ponder the possibility of the two being related . Also I noted that Julie's new breed have walnut combs , and it seems too much of a coincident that this trait would crop out as a true mutation along with the change in feathers . There are other species of both wild and domestic birds recorded with silkied feathers [ or perhaps frayed judging from their appearence ] leading me to believe that the known genetic theory on the silkied feather is only partially correct . Mathmaticly , a true mutation [ if such a thing exists ] would not occur often enough for it to be observed in recorded history , let alone observed in several feathered species during my life time . Personally I would suspicion a Silkie cross within the past 5 to 10 years , but would not rule out the possibility that it was a recessive gene carried down through another source ; a gene necessary for the "theory of adaption " of a " created " species to a changing environment rather than a random " mutation " of an " evolved species " .
So " What's wrong with my chicken's feathers ? " could be answered with " Nothing , some chickens carry hidden recessive genes necessary to fit a dry environment where flight is not an advantage . " Hopefully I have not opened a can of worms , I know my ideas or beliefs often offend .
Steve that was beautifully said. Mutations arise rarely and are often lethal in whatever form they might take. In this situation I also believe that the feathering is caused by recessive genes just because the two original birds from Jubaby's first breeding are out of the same clutch of eggs. Maybe if Jubaby could isolate the original parents and gather eggs from them she might get more of these strangely feathered, Ameraucanas.
Quote:
i've mostly watched this because i have not enough background to have anyting relevant to say... and i agree with a lot of what's beed said but i just wanted to point out this quote in reguards to tracing it back to a silkie mutation.. those aren't walnut combs.. they're peacombs... true to their parents "breed"
and all the stuff tracing birds back to prehistoric stuff is crazy interesting.. i jsut wish i had the attention span to follow it... i watched a show recently where they said that many dinosaurs were probly ancestors to chickens.... or something to that affect...
another thing, just in humor, they are not mutations, they are strange freaks of nature... lol... things happen, and even freaks need love....
they are gorgeous birds, one day i might be able to get some...
i've mostly watched this because i have not enough background to have anyting relevant to say... and i agree with a lot of what's beed said but i just wanted to point out this quote in reguards to tracing it back to a silkie mutation.. those aren't walnut combs.. they're peacombs... true to their parents "breed"
and all the stuff tracing birds back to prehistoric stuff is crazy interesting.. i jsut wish i had the attention span to follow it... i watched a show recently where they said that many dinosaurs were probly ancestors to chickens.... or something to that affect...
another thing, just in humor, they are not mutations, they are strange freaks of nature... lol... things happen, and even freaks need love....
they are gorgeous birds, one day i might be able to get some...
Quote:
i've mostly watched this because i have not enough background to have anyting relevant to say... and i agree with a lot of what's beed said but i just wanted to point out this quote in reguards to tracing it back to a silkie mutation.. those aren't walnut combs.. they're peacombs... true to their parents "breed"
and all the stuff tracing birds back to prehistoric stuff is crazy interesting.. i jsut wish i had the attention span to follow it... i watched a show recently where they said that many dinosaurs were probly ancestors to chickens.... or something to that affect...
another thing, just in humor, they are not mutations, they are strange freaks of nature... lol... things happen, and even freaks need love....
they are gorgeous birds, one day i might be able to get some...
My bad discs just woke me up , laptop in lap , still logged in , and saw other poor souls have been awake
Go back to page 7 , post # 68 , and check that comb out . It ain't a pretty walnut [ beauty is in the eye of the beholder and even a really great walnut comb reminds me of the south end of a north bound monkey in estrus ] , but to my eyes there's nothing about that roo's headbonnet that says pea
But I think it adds to his exotic , prehistoric look .
Logging out on that note !
i've mostly watched this because i have not enough background to have anyting relevant to say... and i agree with a lot of what's beed said but i just wanted to point out this quote in reguards to tracing it back to a silkie mutation.. those aren't walnut combs.. they're peacombs... true to their parents "breed"
and all the stuff tracing birds back to prehistoric stuff is crazy interesting.. i jsut wish i had the attention span to follow it... i watched a show recently where they said that many dinosaurs were probly ancestors to chickens.... or something to that affect...
another thing, just in humor, they are not mutations, they are strange freaks of nature... lol... things happen, and even freaks need love....
they are gorgeous birds, one day i might be able to get some...
My bad discs just woke me up , laptop in lap , still logged in , and saw other poor souls have been awake
Go back to page 7 , post # 68 , and check that comb out . It ain't a pretty walnut [ beauty is in the eye of the beholder and even a really great walnut comb reminds me of the south end of a north bound monkey in estrus ] , but to my eyes there's nothing about that roo's headbonnet that says pea
Logging out on that note !
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
Greetings from a new chicken parent of 6!
- Started by chickenstarter12
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Chick with deformed wings. Need support please.
- Started by Hannah McQuillan
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Over researched and made myself anxious about coccidiosis- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 67
-
-
-
-
