# Confusing but interesting genetics website



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

http://australianavianresearchorganization.com/index.html

Take a look at the galleries. There are some explainations in there, and lots of pictures. They made up names for a lot of the looks they are finding, which can be confusing. I prefer just listing the genes that are at work in a bird, but it's whatever. I'm beginning to think their 'slate' is different from our 'slate'. What we call slate, is the smokey gene. Most of the slates I've seen on the website have black beaks and dark feathers - not what you'll find on a smokey bird, as they have light skin. Unless they are also dirty, but there is no mention of it being present. One thing I don't like about the website, is how it is basically saying we are all wrong and they are right. Or at least, that is what I am gathering. You may have your own opinions. It is very possible that we are wrong, but a lot of the things I am seeing goes against everything I have ever learned.

Like for example, this bird:








This bird is described as:
"Bronze influenced Kite Pied cock with white flights and carrying Almond"
"This bird was a result of six generations of crossing with Kite, Ash Red, White-Scale patter Bronze and Basic-Almond. Ash Red is Dominant, but
you do not see that in the phenotype here also - that doesn't mean it's not there!"

To me, that bird is: Blue t-pattern, Kite, Whiteflight, and Piebald.
Almond is dominant, therefore it only requires one copy of the gene to show. I see almond nowhere on this bird. Also, Ash-red is dominant, and cannot be carried by a cockbird without being visually ash-red based. This is because one copy of the gene can be carried on each X (more specifically, Z) chromosome. Cocks have two X's (Z's), and hens have one.

So I am confused.  Anyone want to add some input here?


----------



## Covenant Loft (Feb 10, 2009)

I am no genetics expert so correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought almond being a dominant gene and therefore a bird cannot carry it (it is either almond ot it's not).


----------



## newday (Dec 12, 2004)

*Almond*

Yes, almond is dominate and a bird is either almond or not, but of course the expression of the almond break and coloration is dependent on other modifers.


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

That's what I thought too. But what they are doing is pretty impressive really. They are finding new genomes that we didn't know existed before. Very neat phenotypes coming up. It's a little difficult to understand, but after spending a LONG time going back and forth with the guy, I'm starting to get it more. The one thing I do despise is the Slate genome. They could have picked something else to call it. Because I keep thinking they mean Slate as in Smokey, not Slate as in an entirely different set of variations. The difference between this guy and the old genetics guys that came up with what we study religiously, is that this guy is able to use DNA mapping and such. If his findings ever finally get circulated, he'll change pigeon genetics as we know it (it's about to get a hella lot more complicated  ).


However! Elementary genetics like me and George preach, when you ask "what does this and this give you", is still right. We just aren't as complex as this guy is. Like a blue cock and a red hen will always give you blue based hens and red based cocks. But....now we have some new stuff to consider when thinking of EVERYTHING that can be passed down and shown in the offspring.



I think until we get these complex birds in America, I will save my brain from frying and just stick with what I already know. It'll take me a long time to grasp this new stuff, and even longer to get where I can teach/explain it  For now, I am perfectly fine with accepting that there are tons of variations in grizzles and such, and not having to know exactly how they came about.


----------



## indigobob (Nov 12, 2008)

It is an immpressive-looking website which I've looked around a few times prior to the link being posted here, I usually leave feeling very angry at the arrogant attitude of the site owner.

Many of the so-called "new genes" are already well-researched and documented by respected fanciers/scientists within the pigeon colour-genetics community. 

For example the "slates" Mary mentioned, are juvenile-plumage, dirty blue chequers; "zebra pattern" also juvenile plumage birds which will lose the "stripes" once moulted, etc, etc.

There are some interesting colour combinations shown, but for me there are too many erroneous colour descriptions for the site to have real credibility. 

Interesting to look through, but a good example of "style over substance".


----------



## Pigeonrh (Oct 3, 2001)

Ive heard people over the years call Kites het almonds. Kinda wrong if ya ask me. lol


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Some of the slates he has found, are on red birds though. An ash-red bird, with a patch of blue slaty sooty (however you want to describe it) patch on the shoulder or such. LOOKS like a mosaic, but it isn't as it can be reproduced. The harlequins also look like mosaics but again, can be reproduced. 

I agree, his know-it-all attitude does make me angry, but it's how he is. I can understand finding new color modifiers and such. New mutations are always popping up. I think a lot of his explainations mislead me to think he means other things. I don't know, I'll have to take the time to fish through all the galleries (and unappropriate, random pictures) to find all of his discoveries. I don't like how they are trying to be sure THEY are the first to find these things. Like Harlequin for example, they are waiting until they figure it all out to post all the info. Things happen a lot faster if geneticists, scientists, and anyone trying to find out things, work together and share their progress. And I don't mean just pictures. Instead, it LOOKS like they want to lay claim to everything. Chances are, people have noticed the same things in other countries, before they did.


----------



## Henk69 (Feb 25, 2010)

I enjoyed the site but was too distracted by the non pigeon stuff...


----------



## indigobob (Nov 12, 2008)

Homozygous indigo chequer


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Sure does look a lot like the blue-headed and charcoal-headed ash-reds on the site  But he swears up and down that there is absolutely no indigo in those birds.


----------



## indigobob (Nov 12, 2008)

MaryOfExeter said:


> Sure does look a lot like the blue-headed and charcoal-headed ash-reds on the site  But he swears up and down that there is absolutely no indigo in those birds.


Well, to be honest he doesn't know the genome of a lot of his birds, if he breeds open-loft how can he be sure of any of them? 

I don't have a photograph of the bird once it had completed it's moult.


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Did those white-ish feathers moult out solid white?


----------



## indigobob (Nov 12, 2008)

MaryOfExeter said:


> Did those white-ish feathers moult out solid white?


The base of the feathers on the wing shield are whitish, but they wouldn't have moulted out white.


----------

