White Hen peahen crosses

[Rosa moschata]

Hi
I know that the white hen must be Indian Blue as I'm based in the UK and the number of Silver pied in the UK, is unlikely to be in double figures and the number of second generation birds is likely to be nil, the same goes for the other colours. I have heard of only one or two people with any of the more exotic colours.
Cheers

That being the case, then she may very well be simply an IB with two copies of the White gene, thus being White. If Black-Shouldered peafowl are common there, she could also be that, but, again, you wouldn't know except by test-breeding. So let's just assume that the only thing different about her from any other peahen is that she has two copies of the White gene.

If you breed her to a male showing any of the autosomal recessive colors (Bronze, Opal, Midnight, etc) then all offspring will be Indian Blue split to White and whatever color Dad is. Autosomal recessive mutations require two copies to show. Offspring receive half their chromosomes from Dad, the other half from Mom. The offspring will all receive only one copy of the autosomal recessive color from Dad, and thus not show the color, but will be split to it.

If you breed her to a male showing any of the sex-linked colors (Purple, Cameo, Peach), then all the male offspring will be Indian Blue split to White and whatever color Dad is, while all the female offspring will be whatever color Dad is, split to White. To show sex-linked colors (genes on the Z chromosome), females need one copy while males need two. Females get their only Z from Dad, so they will show whatever sex-linked color Dad has. Males get one Z from Dad and one Z from Mom, so they will be split to whatever sex-linked color Dad has.

Since Mom has two copies of the White gene, then all her offspring will have one copy from her. Since Dad does not, then the offspring will have ONLY one copy, and thus be "split to White."

Google "Punnett Square" and learn how they work to help predict genetic pairings. It's a simple tool to learn that can answer many questions which get posted here.

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

 

[Rosa moschata]

Excellent, Thank you. I think thread 201 has explained it, because the different colour genes are not on the same part of the chromosome it is not a case of A OR B, but can be A AND B and it depends how they interact. The White hen has the Indian Blue Colouration gene, its simply "masked" by the white gene, which simply tells feathers not to express any colour. Therefore any chicks would most likely be spilt to White and the Opal, although if I used Cameo et al , it looks like I would get Cameo hens and normal spilt males.
Therefore unless someone had put Opal into a White years ago and i was lucky enough to put Opal back onto the correct hen I will not get an opal.
Thank You Again

Every time two different recessive colored peafowl are bred, the resulting offsprings will look Indiablue ( the original, classic, dominant , parental color from which all these colors have mutated.) but actually split to those two colors. They do not have to have any India blue gene.. They say it is only an expression.

There's a bit of misinformation in thread 201 which I copied below:

As far as we know, mutation split mutation (ie: Bronze split Opal, Taupe split Charcoal, etc) birds do not exist. This is not to say that it's impossible for them to exist. No one so far as proven that any of the colors are alleles of any of the other colors, meaning no one can prove that any of the coding for these colors exist on the same area of the same chromosome and would replace one another. So theoretically this is possible, but you'd be a little silly to try to breed for this.


Clifton Nicholson, Jr. (the original breeder of the first Peach peahen) does not acknowledge the notion that "Bronze split Opal" or other "Color split Other Color" do not exist, or are not possible. He has been combining different color mutations of peafowl for years, but is not very public with his enterprises. He did release his Indigo (=Purple Bronze) peafowl for sale a little while back, and has been working with combining other color mutations (up to 4, last I emailed him) as well.

The idea that "you'd be a little silly to try to breed for this" is rather silly itself. Anyone who says breeding for birds split to two different colors is "silly" clearly missed something in high school biology when Mendelian genetics was taught, and the topic of "dihybrid cross" came up. That "silly" notion was first published over 150 years ago.

Outside of the peafowl world, breeders have no such dogma against combining colors. Ever see "Albino" cockatiels? Genetically, they are Whiteface-Lutinos. Ever see "Blue-Ice" Quakers? They are Blue-Cinnamons. How about bringing it home -- Lavender chickens? Those are Black with two copies of autosomal recessive Self-Blue (aka Lavender). My book on ducks by Dave Holderread abounds with genetic explanations of colors and patterns which, when combined in various ways, leads to the colors and patterns seen among various breeds.

And among peafowl themselves -- no one seems to think it's "silly" to breed for Bronze Blackshoulders. "Oh, but that's different....that's a color and a pattern." Poppycock. They are mutations in genes which result in altered appearance. One mutation causes males to develop dark wing colors, and females to be sort of a lacy white. The other mutation alters the color presentation such that what is blue in normals becomes a glossy brown in Bronze peafowl. Put them together and you can see both in the same bird. Two colors would work the same. Purple alters the iridescence of the blue to give a lighter purplish tint, as well as fading the black feathers to brown. Bronze darkens the blue area. Indigo peafowl show both traits combined -- dark purplish-blue with brownish wings. Perhaps the "you'd be silly to breed for this" is an echo from commercial breeders to discourage others from experimenting to create their own "new" colors.



Also, there is no "India Blue gene". Every color or pattern is the result of a mutation, or "mistake", of the normal version of that gene. If you have at least one copy of each of the normal versions of these genes, you get India Blue. Bronze is the result of a mutation on one gene, resulting in the dark color in the plumage, being had as two copies (thus no "normal" version of that gene is present). Purple is the result of a mutation in another gene. Cross the two, and you'll get IB males (and Purple females, if the father was Purple) because the Bronze had the normal version of the Purple gene (thus the "India Blue" version), and the Purple had the normal version of the Bronze gene (thus the "India Blue" version).

Thus the offspring get a normal version of each (as well as a mutated version of each), and look India Blue. But cross the offspring together, and you can get some which have neither normal version of Bronze or Purple, and thus show the effects of both colors -- and you get Clifton's "Indigo" peafowl.

 

[Kev]

THANK YOU so much for everything you said. Quite a relief to see someone else to say those things..

 

[Pavomuticus]

Thank you Rosa moschata, you've explained everything wonderfully, ps although a ''Punnett Square'' would explain the geneotype of any cross, without a fuller understanding of the genetics of peafowl it would not explain the phenotype of the offspring. I've done them with for example black chickens and white chickens and you would not expect to get wild type colouration coming from this cross. But with straighforward homozygous Bronze cross Opal all the offspring apparently will be phenotypically Wild type colouration : ), very exciting no and different from lots of other coulour cross in domestic animals.....

 

[Arbor]

There's a bit of misinformation in thread 201 which I copied below:

As far as we know, mutation split mutation (ie: Bronze split Opal, Taupe split Charcoal, etc) birds do not exist. This is not to say that it's impossible for them to exist. No one so far as proven that any of the colors are alleles of any of the other colors, meaning no one can prove that any of the coding for these colors exist on the same area of the same chromosome and would replace one another. So theoretically this is possible, but you'd be a little silly to try to breed for this.


Clifton Nicholson, Jr. (the original breeder of the first Peach peahen) does not acknowledge the notion that "Bronze split Opal" or other "Color split Other Color" do not exist, or are not possible. He has been combining different color mutations of peafowl for years, but is not very public with his enterprises. He did release his Indigo (=Purple Bronze) peafowl for sale a little while back, and has been working with combining other color mutations (up to 4, last I emailed him) as well.

The idea that "you'd be a little silly to try to breed for this" is rather silly itself. Anyone who says breeding for birds split to two different colors is "silly" clearly missed something in high school biology when Mendelian genetics was taught, and the topic of "dihybrid cross" came up. That "silly" notion was first published over 150 years ago.

Outside of the peafowl world, breeders have no such dogma against combining colors. Ever see "Albino" cockatiels? Genetically, they are Whiteface-Lutinos. Ever see "Blue-Ice" Quakers? They are Blue-Cinnamons. How about bringing it home -- Lavender chickens? Those are Black with two copies of autosomal recessive Self-Blue (aka Lavender). My book on ducks by Dave Holderread abounds with genetic explanations of colors and patterns which, when combined in various ways, leads to the colors and patterns seen among various breeds.

And among peafowl themselves -- no one seems to think it's "silly" to breed for Bronze Blackshoulders. "Oh, but that's different....that's a color and a pattern." Poppycock. They are mutations in genes which result in altered appearance. One mutation causes males to develop dark wing colors, and females to be sort of a lacy white. The other mutation alters the color presentation such that what is blue in normals becomes a glossy brown in Bronze peafowl. Put them together and you can see both in the same bird. Two colors would work the same. Purple alters the iridescence of the blue to give a lighter purplish tint, as well as fading the black feathers to brown. Bronze darkens the blue area. Indigo peafowl show both traits combined -- dark purplish-blue with brownish wings. Perhaps the "you'd be silly to breed for this" is an echo from commercial breeders to discourage others from experimenting to create their own "new" colors.




Also, there is no "India Blue gene". Every color or pattern is the result of a mutation, or "mistake", of the normal version of that gene. If you have at least one copy of each of the normal versions of these genes, you get India Blue. Bronze is the result of a mutation on one gene, resulting in the dark color in the plumage, being had as two copies (thus no "normal" version of that gene is present). Purple is the result of a mutation in another gene. Cross the two, and you'll get IB males (and Purple females, if the father was Purple) because the Bronze had the normal version of the Purple gene (thus the "India Blue" version), and the Purple had the normal version of the Bronze gene (thus the "India Blue" version).

Thus the offspring get a normal version of each (as well as a mutated version of each), and look India Blue. But cross the offspring together, and you can get some which have neither normal version of Bronze or Purple, and thus show the effects of both colors -- and you get Clifton's "Indigo" peafowl.

Poppycock, I love it!

I can't believe 201 actually says "you'd be silly to try". Other colour combos are coming soon. Expect them within 5 years. I have parentage for at least four, and a large GQF incubator to fill with their eggs....

 

[Yoda]

Cashew Poppycock is the BOMB!

 

[new 2 pfowl]

I don't want to be troublesome, but can I just say that it is a bit unfair to jump on kedreeva (who spent a massive amount of time compiling and organizing the valuable information in the sticky threads for all of our benefit) for saying something is a "little silly." I'm sure she was juggling a lot of opinions, knowledge and information from many peapeople. It may have been an inauspicious word choice but it would be more helpful and nicer just to contribute alternative views.

 

[Rosa moschata]

I don't want to be troublesome, but can I just say that it is a bit unfair to jump on kedreeva (who spent a massive amount of time compiling and organizing the valuable information in the sticky threads for all of our benefit) for saying something is a "little silly." I'm sure she was juggling a lot of opinions, knowledge and information from many peapeople. It may have been an inauspicious word choice but it would be more helpful and nicer just to contribute alternative views.

I did not "jump" on anyone, but merely criticized a statement using a piece of itself for emphasis. Criticizing ideas is not the same as criticizing the thinkers. I recognize that the sticky took time and effort, and that's why I was scratching my head at the "silly" part, especially since it is not grounded in fact or science. If one statement says something has never occurred, and another says it has occurred, that's not merely "alternate views." Obviously one is correct and the other isn't. I also know that stickies have been refined as more information came forward (which I commend), so if its author sees this criticism, hopefully it will be investigated and edited.

 

[Yoda]

There is no harm done. I hope Kedreeva comes to this thread and takes that info and adds it to her sticky thread as it is good information and should be included into it for others to read and use. That is what the point of the sticky is.

 

[Joe.G]

Rosa Why are you not using your old loggin name?