What's wrong with their feathers?

[SteveH]

Quote:
I'm not saying they are silkie crosses, but I had some silkie crosses with a variety of combs-none sloppy, and some had no leg feathers. Also some did not have blackish features. Just saying....


edited to add: they are absolutely gorgeous btw

I agree and also am not trying to be mean or rude but they can be Silkie Crosses. While they may not have the exact features of the Silkie parent they inherit the feathering from the silkie parent and other features from the other parent. If they had foot feathering, black skin, walnut comb/semi-crest, and the feathering as well then wouldn't that make them straight silkie? These guys we were already told were also Americauna, so I believe it is possible to have a crossed Americauna with a silkie and get a bird like this.

Yes! very nice looking birds

It's well documented that the originals descended from birds sold as Ameraucanas from this woman, and her word that they were pure Ameraucanas. Please read the descriptions of her Ameraucana eggs and birds in the one ad, and note her large fowl silkies "always kept in covered pens at the other side of the property." in the other. IMHO, there is room to doubt both the purity and spontaneous mutation theories, but that does not make them any less rare or miraculous.

http://www.ovabid.com/detail.asp?id=2251

http://www.ovabid.com/detail.asp?id=1737&bigpic=0#img

 

[welasharon]

Quote:
I agree and also am not trying to be mean or rude but they can be Silkie Crosses. While they may not have the exact features of the Silkie parent they inherit the feathering from the silkie parent and other features from the other parent. If they had foot feathering, black skin, walnut comb/semi-crest, and the feathering as well then wouldn't that make them straight silkie? These guys we were already told were also Americauna, so I believe it is possible to have a crossed Americauna with a silkie and get a bird like this.

Yes! very nice looking birds

It's well documented that the originals descended from birds sold as Ameraucanas from this woman, and her word that they were pure Ameraucanas. Please read the descriptions of her Ameraucana eggs and birds in the one ad, and note her large fowl silkies "always kept in covered pens at the other side of the property." in the other. IMHO, there is room to doubt both the purity and spontaneous mutation theories, but that does not make them any less rare or miraculous.

http://www.ovabid.com/detail.asp?id=2251

http://www.ovabid.com/detail.asp?id=1737&bigpic=0#img

It goes even further than that of her word. They explored any silkie contamination extensively. You have to read all the posts.....it took me a while...

 

[Time-Out]

I even called DEFRA to see what I need to do about importing eggs lol. It's a shame none would make it to me in a hatchable state. I'd love to start this strain in the Uk.

 

[SteveH]

Quote:
It's well documented that the originals descended from birds sold as Ameraucanas from this woman, and her word that they were pure Ameraucanas. Please read the descriptions of her Ameraucana eggs and birds in the one ad, and note her large fowl silkies "always kept in covered pens at the other side of the property." in the other. IMHO, there is room to doubt both the purity and spontaneous mutation theories, but that does not make them any less rare or miraculous.

http://www.ovabid.com/detail.asp?id=2251

http://www.ovabid.com/detail.asp?id=1737&bigpic=0#img

It goes even further than that of her word. They explored any silkie contamination extensively. You have to read all the posts.....it took me a while...

Oh, I've been reading this thread for a long time, and read it from the beginning. I've seen nothing that prooves that the two originals weren't a result of a recessive silkie gene, carried by their two parents, descended from those EEs that the seller argued were true Ameraucanas; nor any evidence, other than the astronomicly high chances of it happening, that two birds never spontaneously mutated to silkie feathering in the same hatch. Either origin is only a theory, and certainly not fact . Obviously they are not Silkies; they do not fit the SOP for Silkies or even come close. [Neither are many that are sold as Silkies; some lack the fifth toe, crest, black skin, etc.; most likely because Silkie breeders have outcrossed so often to add new colors, backyard breeders have mixed breed flocks, and hatcheries often use impure stock.] Also obvious is that they are silkie feathered, lay blue or green eggs, and breed as the recessive genes for those two charcacteristics do in other breeds. I'm do not have any understanding at all of why it is so important for some people to believe these birds were a spontaneous mutation from pure Ameraucanas, but obviously it is. To me they are no less incredible if they originated from the source that is more mathmaticly probable.

 

[alicefelldown]

Quote:
Minor correction: The original seller in WA (who sold to the lady in TX) never argued that her birds were true Ameraucanas, she freely admitted that she started with EE stock and after learning the difference bred in good quality Ameraucana birds. Only after several years of breeding to the standard did she start selling her birds as Ameraucanas.

At some point, no mater how poor the starting EE quality, when you are capable of producing Ameraucana type birds that breed true, and are of the correct egg coloring - you do indeed have Ameraucanas. It takes work and a skilled eye, but it's not impossible.

 

[welasharon]

Sometimes you just gotta believe!

 

[LostGosling]

Cool! Those are pure Ameraucana, too. If they where a Silkie cross, they would have bluish black skin and extra toes. You really have something special!

 

[bantiebabe1200]

Quote:
I agree, I see only Americana in these two. The feathers are a mistery to me, but I think they are something very special! Hopefully they will continue to produce this in thier chicks.

 

[Kev]

"Silkie cross"

I think that's being both misunderstood and applied. It's entirely plausible that the silking came from a cross with silkie somewhere in their past. Contrary to someone said, it is very easy to breed out most of the silkie characteristics because most of them are dominant or semi dominant(crest, leg feathering, extra toes, black skin), which also means it's very easy to breed them out. Easy to do in as little as 2 generations, especially if the birds were bred back to an EE or Amer. The only exception would be the silky feathering, because it is recessive. This is also why it can "float" down many generations, undetected.

So, just because none of those birds show crest, black skin etc does not mean the silking did not come from silkies. It could mean the birds were bred back to the Amer type after the initial cross.

If one of those silkied birds were bred with a silkie and the result was 100% silky feathered chicks, that would be strong evidence it is the same gene.

Besides..... so what if the silking is due to the same gene in silkies? IMO it would be silly to change one's mind of these birds based on whether it was the same silky gene or a spontaneous mutation. Let's concentrate instead on goals with these birds. Improving on type? Introduce the silky gene to other colors?

 

[RHRanch]

Quote:
Agreed. People use deliberate crosses to introduce colors all the time. For example, how else do you introduce lavender to a breed in which that color does not occur? All that matters now is that the birds be strictly culled to select for ameraucana traits.