# New question about colors



## mrottler (Jun 11, 2011)

This is _mostly_ unrelated to my previous question, except I again am wondering whether this bird is opal, andalusian, or what? (The first photo, to me, looks like the birds I asked about in the other thread, which were supposedly opals) Ok this is going to get complicated, so I will start out with furthest back in the family tree. A male bird *called* andalusian mated to a black hen

produced another male *called* an andalusian

this bird when mated with a solid white hen produced a red baldhead hen, but she looks splashed.
When this bird is mated to nice red baldhead cock...ok here is the question...
I have the baby from this mating, which looks like a nice red baldhead, can it carry that indigo or opal color above, that would be hidden by what I assume is recessive red?

Michelle


----------



## mrottler (Jun 11, 2011)

NO one? I am just basically asking if recessive red can hide opal or indigo or whatever the cocks are presenting.
Michelle


----------



## sreeshs (Aug 16, 2009)

Indigo is said to enhance RR, while read some where that it reduces effect by wearing down the color of tail to more dark ash  and do not know for sure


----------



## vangimage (Aug 15, 2010)

No, recessive colors and factors can not carry dom. factors or colors. Reds can carry blue, red being dominant to blue. Blue can not carry red, if a bird has red and blue it will show it self as a red. Same with dominant opal. Hope that helps, If Im wrong some one correct me I am still learning too.


----------



## rudolph.est (May 14, 2009)

mrottler said:


> NO one? I am just basically asking if recessive red can hide opal or indigo or whatever the cocks are presenting.
> Michelle


I think recessive red won't hide the dominant opals, they might still show some lightening of the pattern areas, or the pattern may even be completely white (as on this photo). I have no idea what recessive opal (not cherry - what used to be called the red phase of recessive opal) will do on recessive red, although I am sure the color intensity would differ enough to be visible.

Recessive red and Indigo is not recommended for breeding show quality recessive reds, since their tails tend to be smutty (or so I have read). But yes, recessive yellows can hide indigo, spread and even Ash-red underneath the recessive red coloration.


----------



## rudolph.est (May 14, 2009)

vangimage said:


> No, recessive colors and factors can not carry dom. factors or colors. Reds can carry blue, red being dominant to blue. Blue can not carry red, if a bird has red and blue it will show it self as a red. Same with dominant opal. Hope that helps, If Im wrong some one correct me I am still learning too.


I am sorry _vanimage_, but your statement here is only true when the genes in question are at the same locus. 

For instance at the color locus: Ash-red (*B^A*) will dominate over blue *(B)* which in turn will dominate over brown *(b)* (shorthand we could write * B^A > B > b *)

The same is not true about recessive red, since recessive red is not located at he color locus (location on the chromosome). A well bred recessive red hides whatever color the bird's color locus gene programmed it to be (whether it is ash-red, blue or brown). This mechanism is called epistasis (interrelations between genes at different loci) and should not be confused with simple dominant / recessive terminology, which only applies to genes at the same locus. This means a recessive red can 'carry' ash-red even though ash-red is called a dominant gene and recessive red is a recessive trait. 

This being said, it is definitely possible to breed indigo recessive reds and depending on the other genes the recessive red bird has, the indigo might be hidden or might show up as a blueish tinge undercarriage on the recessive red bird (similar to but not as pronounced as "unimproved" recessive red - as seen in recessive red homers).


----------



## vangimage (Aug 15, 2010)

I was talking about red, blue and dom opal. The recessive can cant hide anything because that recessive gene if express indicates that the bird only got the recessive gene double dose if you will. If the dom. gene was present the bird will not express the recessive traits. There is not way recessive can hide a dom. trait or color. IE If I breed an grizzle to a blue bar and get blue bars. These blue bars will never throw grizzles unless bred to a grizzle. It is especially true of recessive red a true recessive. If I breed a rec. red to anything I will only get that ever the other bird is caring, now the babies may carry the rec. with them.


----------



## rudolph.est (May 14, 2009)

vangimage said:


> I was talking about red, blue and dom opal. The recessive can cant hide anything because that recessive gene if express indicates that the bird only got the recessive gene double dose if you will. If the dom. gene was present the bird will not express the recessive traits. There is not way recessive can hide a dom. trait or color. IE If I breed an grizzle to a blue bar and get blue bars. These blue bars will never throw grizzles unless bred to a grizzle. It is especially true of recessive red a true recessive. If I breed a rec. red to anything I will only get that ever the other bird is caring, now the babies may carry the rec. with them.


Your statement is true of mutations at the same locus, but not true for the example you give. Recessive red _can_ and _does_ hide other (even dominant) genes.

Again I refer you to my previous post. A recessive gene _can_ hide dominant genes, that is the crux of the matter when talking about epistasis.

For example, if you have an black (blue spread - which is dominant) bird with a double dose of recessive white, the bird will be all white. This means that the white (recessive) is hiding the spread (dominant). This happens because spread and recessive white are non-allelic (they are not mutations at the same spot / locus on the same chromosome). Similarly you can definitely get good colored recessive reds that also carry spread or ash-red or T-pattern check an you would never know it, because the recessive red hides the expression of these other genes.


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Recessive red hides everything except opal, pale, pencil, toy stencil, dilute, recessive white, almond/qualmond, milky, reduced and a few others that I'm sure I'm forgetting.

Recessive Red Dominant Opal

















Penciled recessive red


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Recessive red/yellow toy stencil

















Reduced recessive red


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

And this is supposed to be milky recessive red


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

But yes, to answer your question, it is possible they are still indigo or even andalusian under the recessive red. But the opal would show itself. Can you post a bigger version of the first picture? Or is that the same bird from the other thread?


----------



## rudolph.est (May 14, 2009)

Thanks for the pictures Becky, I never know where you find them all...

I'm not quite sure about the supposed milky recessive. red though. There is too much pattern showing through on the wing shield for recessive red to be involved. 

I have a friend who introduced milky into his fancy tumblers (I think they are felegyhazer tumblers). The milky on his recessive red birds don't look at all like this. His recessive red milky birds look like a washed out recessive red, not really pink, but one can imagine. Most breeders of good recessive reds would say these birds are just poor quality recessive reds.

I would guess the picture you posted is maybe a milky ash-red.

Also recessive red does not seem to completely hide indigo, according to Frank Mosca in a previous post. The indigo is visible in the tail and undercarriage. This means we can teach ourselves to distinguish indigo recessive reds from normal recessive reds, it would just take some practice and experience.


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

That's what I thought too, but compared to milky ash-red check/t-patterns, that bird looked...different. I'm not sure what it is, but it doesn't even remind me of milky to begin with. The color isn't as soft as most milkies. If anything, it is more...contrasted; crisp I guess. As far as the pattern goes. It would be much easier if the tail and flights were not white, so we could see what color they should be.

I found all the pictures on the Slobberknocker Lofts website, by the way  A decent amount of reference pics there.


----------



## mrottler (Jun 11, 2011)

I don't have a better photo of that one bird, it was sent to me. It is different than my previous post, but looks similar to me--just not really checkered with the peachy color, but has more peach color in his flights. I don't even know if that bird is alive any more. Very interesting responses here, thanks all.
Michelle


----------

