# T-Pattern/Dark Check



## DynaBMan (Jun 15, 2006)

I am posting this at work and therefore, I do not have access to my pictures. In my earlier thread about the dark colored cock bird, *****, you folks helped me to learn about the T-Pattern or dark check pattern. From what we could see, that is what ***** is. He mated with a red check hen and I now have one young bird that is very, very dark, with a single white feather on each wing. The white feather is actually hidden on her right wing, under the other feathers. Miss T seems to have the same dark check pattern as her father.

My question is this. Does this dark check pattern come only in dark blue or does it show up in red check birds as well? I am not sure, but I believe I have a couple of red check birds that may carry this pattern. They are almost solid colored on their backs. As always, I am just wondering aloud. I will try to post a picture of Miss T in this thread, later today.


----------



## DynaBMan (Jun 15, 2006)

*Red t-pattern*

From looking at bluecheck's website, I can see the t-pattern does exist in the red birds. I am not sure that is what my red check birds are. Here is the link to Frank's site and again, I will try to post a picture of Miss T and one of the red birds this evening.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/pigeongenetics/Red.html


----------



## DynaBMan (Jun 15, 2006)

I had forgotten I had a picture of Miss T on my blog. This was taken a few days ago and she has darkened considerably.

http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/my-pigeons/p1010156/


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

I'm looking through your pictures now. You've got some pretty birds. And I see you have a pigeon named RC. I have one named that as well, but it's a she.

I always thought the T-pattern reds were pretty. I've had quite a few of them. Because they're so solid in color, I end up just calling them red. Mine didn't appear to be as dark as the one on Frank's site though 







Ruby








and this is her dad Red. (horrible pic since he was in the process of feeding the babies)

I'm _pretty sure _you'd call those ash red T's? I'm not positive, which is why I'm asking if they are. They aren't the best quality pictures but if you had the birds in your hands, you'd see they had a few of the little "T"s on their feathers.
How is it I come to these genetic threads to try and help and end up asking a million questions myself?


----------



## jbangelfish (Mar 22, 2008)

*People call them velvets*

They are t pattern ash reds. The T pattern makes a nice red on ash reds. Red check is just like it sounds and looks like blue or silver check. These are diamond shaped patterns of color on a blue, silver or in the case of ash red, it shows over the ash color as red but forms a good checker pattern. They are normally referred to as red check or red checkers. They are still ash red birds.

Many people call the t pattern blue a blue black. They are dark blue with a black tail bar.

Bill


----------



## TheSnipes (Apr 9, 2007)

*I have a secondary question...*



DynaBMan said:


> My question is this. Does this dark check pattern come only in dark blue or does it show up in red check birds as well? I am not sure, but I believe I have a couple of red check birds that may carry this pattern. They are almost solid colored on their backs. As always, I am just wondering aloud. I will try to post a picture of Miss T in this thread, later today.


I dunno but this bird got tagged as red check:








isn't that looking like a dark check pattern in a red? I am just looking for feedback here.

he is young in the pic but looks more like this bird now:








now except he has grey flights instead of white. Is that the same sort of pattern you are talking about?


----------



## DynaBMan (Jun 15, 2006)

Below is a link to a picture of *****. I certainly believe he is a T-pattern or dark check bird.

http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/my-pigeons/p1010272/

Here is a link to a picture of Frosty and Squeaky, in that order. I thought they may be T-pattern birds, but after looking and comparing them to *****, I believe they are regular red check birds, if there is such a thing as regular in pigeons. The pattern on ***** is definitely tighter and therefore darker than normal.

http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/my-pigeons/frosty1/

http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/my-pigeons/squeaky11/


----------



## DynaBMan (Jun 15, 2006)

MaryOfExeter said:


> I'm looking through your pictures now. You've got some pretty birds. And I see you have a pigeon named RC. I have one named that as well, but it's a she.
> 
> I always thought the T-pattern reds were pretty. I've had quite a few of them. Because they're so solid in color, I end up just calling them red. Mine didn't appear to be as dark as the one on Frank's site though
> 
> ...


Thanks for the nice comments about my birds, Mary. I have put a lot of work and effort into them and even though I do not race them, I am proud of them.

I am not sure about Red, but it does look like he is a lighter version of a T-pattern.

One thing about asking questions, it allows us to learn a lot that way.


----------



## jbangelfish (Mar 22, 2008)

*ash reds are highly variable*



TheSnipes said:


> I dunno but this bird got tagged as red check:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could take 100 different ash reds and they could all look alittle different. It is one of the quirks of the gene. It seems to blend some of the factors, or at least more noticeably than other colors that have the same gene, such as t pattern, check, spread, bar, barless, etc. Maybe it's just the fact that you don't see these differences as well on black or blue. Check, bar and barless are obvious on blues but even here you will see variables. Some have more of a pattern than others, even though their genetics are technically, the same.

The first bird does not look check to me but he may change with his first moult and show more of a pattern. This is true of pattern and color genes, the fact that they may look quite different after a moult. Some continue to change to a degree with successive moults.

The terminology of dark check doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean more of the pattern or darker in color? Many modifiers can change the color, such as dirty, sooty, etc. You don't even need one of the drastic modifiers such as dilution to make quite a change in appearance.

Bill


----------



## jbangelfish (Mar 22, 2008)

*Red seems to have several factors*



DynaBMan said:


> Thanks for the nice comments about my birds, Mary. I have put a lot of work and effort into them and even though I do not race them, I am proud of them.
> 
> I am not sure about Red, but it does look like he is a lighter version of a T-pattern.
> 
> One thing about asking questions, it allows us to learn a lot that way.


I would call Red a spread ash red but he does show some red color in the shield. Still, I would think that he is genetically spread, many are lavenders but they would not still show so much reddish tinge. Like I say, they are quite variable in appearance and it sometimes hard to classify them. There are other factors that can muddy up the pattern genes, such as smoky and change the appearance of a check or t pattern bird. Some are apt to smear these patterns more than others and I forget which does what.

If these are his young in the photo, he must also be split for blue/black (he should have black flecks in wingtips and tail) and he is split for dilute as the one chick is ash yellow. Only the cock birds can carry these two genes, hens either are or are not dilute or blue or black. The fact that he has a blue youngster says that he is either heterozygous for spread (makes black) or that he is not actually spread at all. If he were homozygous (pure or double dose) for spread, all of his blue black young would be black instead of blue.
If he were homozygous ash red, all of his young would be ash red.

Bill


----------



## jbangelfish (Mar 22, 2008)

*Look like checks to me*



DynaBMan said:


> Below is a link to a picture of *****. I certainly believe he is a T-pattern or dark check bird.
> 
> http://myviewmytake.wordpress.com/my-pigeons/p1010272/
> 
> ...


Check is one of those that varies alot and some birds have better patterns than others. Why some appear as in betweens, I don't know, they can be nearly a bar and in the case of bars, can be nearly a barless. What they truly are genetically can only be proven by their young. 

***** certainly looks t pattern to me and why he fades to brown has already been discussed. There is likely a factor such as smoky or some other modifier that makes his feathers fade to brown. I don't think that he has any form of bronze, unless he looked this way when his first feathers came in.

Bill


----------



## DynaBMan (Jun 15, 2006)

*Red T-pattern*

Here are four pictures of two different birds. The first two is one of my young cocks, RC. He is a red check that carries blue. The second two is Smoky, one of my cocks from last year. He is also a red check that carries blue, but there is a distinct difference in the pattern and I believe Smoky is a T-pattern check. Of course, I have been wrong before and will be wrong again.


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

jbangelfish said:


> I would call Red a spread ash red but he does show some red color in the shield. Still, I would think that he is genetically spread, many are lavenders but they would not still show so much reddish tinge. Like I say, they are quite variable in appearance and it sometimes hard to classify them. There are other factors that can muddy up the pattern genes, such as smoky and change the appearance of a check or t pattern bird. Some are apt to smear these patterns more than others and I forget which does what.
> 
> If these are his young in the photo, he must also be split for blue/black (he should have black flecks in wingtips and tail) and he is split for dilute as the one chick is ash yellow. Only the cock birds can carry these two genes, hens either are or are not dilute or blue or black. The fact that he has a blue youngster says that he is either heterozygous for spread (makes black) or that he is not actually spread at all. If he were homozygous (pure or double dose) for spread, all of his blue black young would be black instead of blue.
> If he were homozygous ash red, all of his young would be ash red.
> ...


Here's some more pictures of Red that may show the color a little better. He looked horrible that year during the moult 
http://i38.tinypic.com/fyjznb.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/x5clde.jpg
He did have the flecks, and yes those are his children. The yellow one turned out having a light gray patch on her rump. I don't know if that means anything, but it sure did make her pretty. The blue baby in the picture was actually an indigo bar (or at least that's what I was told). Here's both when they were older. I don't have a very good picture of their mom, but she was a pied indigo check I _think_ unless the redish checks and bars are caused by something else.
http://i35.tinypic.com/zlzomv.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/wsrafn.jpg


----------



## jbangelfish (Mar 22, 2008)

*Hi Becky*



MaryOfExeter said:


> Here's some more pictures of Red that may show the color a little better. He looked horrible that year during the moult
> http://i38.tinypic.com/fyjznb.jpg
> http://i38.tinypic.com/x5clde.jpg
> He did have the flecks, and yes those are his children. The yellow one turned out having a light gray patch on her rump. I don't know if that means anything, but it sure did make her pretty. The blue baby in the picture was actually an indigo bar (or at least that's what I was told). Here's both when they were older. I don't have a very good picture of their mom, but she was a pied indigo check I _think_ unless the redish checks and bars are caused by something else.
> ...


Sorry to be so slow, been away on another trip. Red does look to be a t pattern or velvet after his moult. Why it didn't show as a youngster, I have no idea.

Mom must have been indigo as the youngster appears to be indigo. I'm just beginning to study this gene for myself as I never had it until recently. They look like dark ash reds except the grey of the tail and wingtips is darker. I don't think red could be indigo as he looks too light in color to me.

In a mating like this, any of the dilute young have to be hens. Mom would have to be dilute to produce a dilute cock bird. Hens do not carry the dilute gene, either are or are not dilute. This tells you that dad is split for dilute. Some of the young cock birds will be split for dilute as well (I forget if it's half or a fourth of them) but only test matings will tell you which ones they are.

The young hen looks to be a very nice ash yellow check (yellow check, dilute ash red check, call her any of these and most will get it). The gray patch on rump could be something from the indigo and it is possible that she is dilute indigo check but I don't think so. If she produces any indigo or andalusion young from a non indigo mate, she is indigo.

Bill


----------



## jbangelfish (Mar 22, 2008)

*Hey DynaB*



DynaBMan said:


> Here are four pictures of two different birds. The first two is one of my young cocks, RC. He is a red check that carries blue. The second two is Smoky, one of my cocks from last year. He is also a red check that carries blue, but there is a distinct difference in the pattern and I believe Smoky is a T-pattern check. Of course, I have been wrong before and will be wrong again.


First one certainly looks check, second looks to be t pattern but does wash out in the shield. I don't know why but Frank would probably be able to tell us. As I said before, these patterns are quite variable.

Bill


----------



## jbangelfish (Mar 22, 2008)

*Hello again, Becky*

It is possible that Red is one of those indigoes that mimics ash red. In his young photo, he does look too dark for ash red, after I looked again. I'm sure that Frank could tell us for sure. Just what indigo can carry for other genes, I'm not sure. Certainly they can carry dilute and some pattern genes but whether they can be split for blue, I'm not sure.

Bill


----------

