Danny_57
00mercoledì 5 maggio 2010 08:18
Questo pulcino era blu nato ed ora diventato completamente bianco !!!???
Marco e Daiana
00mercoledì 5 maggio 2010 09:00
è la stessa cosa che mi sta succedendo con un pulcino di siciliana!
Danny_57
00mercoledì 5 maggio 2010 09:25
Re:
Marco e Daiana, 5-5-2010 9:00:
è la stessa cosa che mi sta succedendo con un pulcino di siciliana!
Sì, egualmente altri selezionatori hanno avuti questo! Che cosa ha potuto essere la causa di?
Il pulcino è normalmente E/eb S/S*S/- Bl/bl+ , così il nero si è diluito al blu su di Argento. Ha potuto l'Argento sorpassare le piume completeamente??
emanuele-70
00mercoledì 5 maggio 2010 23:19
ciao danny ho postato alcune foto di moroseta c'e' un pulcino che e' quasi grigio perla nato dall'incrocio tra sparviero e nero e' forse un ritorno all'origine della sparviero il becco e la pelle sono chiari
un saluto emanuele
Danny_57
00giovedì 6 maggio 2010 07:50
Re:
emanuele-70, 5-5-2010 23:19:
ciao danny ho postato alcune foto di moroseta c'e' un pulcino che e' quasi grigio perla nato dall'incrocio tra sparviero e nero e' forse un ritorno all'origine della sparviero il becco e la pelle sono chiari
un saluto emanuele
Questo pulcino é nasce da Sparviero X Sparviero ma i genitori dove un trasportatore di un allel del "lav„. Il becco e la pelle sono scuro.
Allora questo pulcino é una grigioperlasparviero !!
emanuele-70
00giovedì 6 maggio 2010 11:37
il mio e' tipo questo solo che ha mantenuto il becco chiaro e la pelle chiara
un saluto emanuele
Danny_57
00giovedì 6 maggio 2010 18:50
Re:
emanuele-70, 6-5-2010 11:37:
il mio e' tipo questo solo che ha mantenuto il becco chiaro e la pelle chiara
un saluto emanuele
ciò è un particolare della testa
Danny_57
00giovedì 13 maggio 2010 11:27
Re:
Danny_57, 5-5-2010 8:18:
Questo pulcino era blu nato ed ora diventato completamente bianco !!!???
Può questo pulcino essere un albino recessivo?
Rachele1
00giovedì 13 maggio 2010 13:11
ciao danny!E' capitato anche a me anni fa, uno nato con piumino blu ha poi sviluppato penne bianche, anche all'allevatore da cui presi il ceppo capitava ogni tanto questa cosa ma non sapeva spiegarsela.
Credo che però l'albinismo non c'entri..il problema dell'albinismo l'avevo posto quando da esemplari blu o da esemplari grigioperla nascevano dei bianchi (già alla nascita bianchi) con cerchietto intorno all'occhio giallo e becco giallo.Oltre a qualche depigmentazione sui tarsi.
In questo caso il colore del piumino che poi cambia non credo abbia valenza essendo il piumino la plumula temporanea..is like that when a chick hatch orange and become white (genetically the white is not so clear but it doesn't mean that is of another colour)
Rachele1
00giovedì 13 maggio 2010 13:14
In every case the feather is not complete, probably at the adult age you will se other colour feather..wait some mounth
Danny_57
00giovedì 13 maggio 2010 13:24
Re:
Rachele1, 13-5-2010 13:14:
In every case the feather is not complete, probably at the adult age you will se other colour feather..wait some mounth
Oké, I keep you informed how it evoluate in time .
Only for now it look strange the "white" it is more whiter than normal white!
Rachele1
00giovedì 13 maggio 2010 13:29
yes, it's true the white is really clear and even if adult the female and coq never will have yellow in neck..so candid
ALEXDETOULOUSE
00sabato 15 maggio 2010 10:20
hello,
I have the same thing last year, and it is white now... The mother black and the father is grigioperlo, pero in the grand parents of the father there was a white.
Danny_57
00mercoledì 2 giugno 2010 23:08
Re:
Rachele1, 13-5-2010 13:29:
yes, it's true the white is really clear and even if adult the female and coq never will have yellow in neck..so candid
The mistery about the Blue becoming white is solved.
As always we not must look to far .
The grandparents of this chick parents was a recessive white cock.
So both Blue parents where carriers of one "c" allel that came together in one of the chicks as "c/c". Recessive white is epistatic (kind of Dominant) over the groundcolor of the chick that was "E/E Bl/bl+ S/S"
By borning the fluff was just Blue, once the feathers came these where just recessive white. Nothing more, nothing less.
Tunde73
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 09:35
Danny but epistatic is not a kind of dominance. And this "c" is a recessive epistatic allele.
Danny_57
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 10:04
Re:
Tunde73, 3-6-2010 9:35:
Danny but epistatic is not a kind of dominance. And this "c" is a recessive epistatic allele.
Oké, Tünde , my chosse of words is not always with the exact scientific definition but I only wanted to give a feeling.
So, Epistatic is a double mutant where one mutation masks the phenotype of another mutation. Epistasis is not the same thing as dominance. With epistasis a mutation in one gene masks the expression of a different gene. With dominance, one allele of a gene masks the expression of another allele of the same gene.
But I found this a too long explanation !!! ;-)
Tunde73
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 10:25
An epistatic gene supresses the effects of an other gene (situated or on the same chromosome but in a different locus or on an other chromosome) so the effect of this other gene (epistatic gene) is not modified but suppressed.
For me epistasis can be not confronted with dominance because when an allele is dominant, it is enough only one of this allele for have the same phenotype as in homozygosity and this not happens with a recessive epistatic gene.
Danny_57
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 10:31
Re:
Tunde73, 3-6-2010 10:25:
An epistatic gene supresses the effects of an other gene (situated or on the same chromosome but in a different locus or on an other chromosome) so the effect of this other gene (epistatic gene) is not modified but suppressed.
For me epistasis can be not confronted with dominance because when an allele is dominant, it is enough only one of this allele for have the same phenotype as in homozygosity and this not happens with a recessive epistatic gene.
Oké, is what I wrote no? If not, sorry for the confusion
![[SM=g7364]](https://im0.freeforumzone.it/up/0/64/2938236.gif)
Danny_57
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 10:40
Re:
For me epistasis can be not confronted with dominance because when an allele is dominant, it is enough only one of this allele for have the same phenotype as in homozygosity and this not happens with a recessive epistatic gene.
I not agree with this !!!
Barred is Dominat when B/b+ should be the same as B/B !!!!!!!
Look the phenotypes in reality !!!
Tunde73
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 11:24
When it is like this we speak of incomplete dominance, you know it.
(When I responded, was written "modifies or suppresses", was the reason I reacted as I reacted.)
Tunde73
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 12:38
For definition dominance is when the phenotype in homozygosity is the same as in heterozygosity. If it is enough that in both cases the phenotype is barred (in this case yes, B is dominant) or counts also the tonality (then B is not completly dominant).
Danny_57
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 12:43
Re:
Tunde73, 3-6-2010 12:38:
For definition dominance is when the phenotype in homozygosity is the same as in heterozygosity. If it is enough that in both cases the phenotype is barred (in this case yes, B is dominant) or counts also the tonality (then B is not completly dominant).
Yes in this way I can agree. But there is a difference with the incomplete Dominant Blue gene, was what I wanted to indicate.
Because "Barring" is nominate as Dominate gene and "Blue" (which is also written with a capital is only an incomplete Dominat gene.
Both show different phenotypes when hetrozygote or homozygote (only not for the Barring because that is sexlinked so the hens look always as an heterozygote form but is called hemyzigote)
But when explaining always in the exact scientific way it gives more confucians (misunderstandings) than bring clearity for the common breeder who wants to understand the basic for can breed with the simple knowledge of genetic heriditance, no?
But in fact it is maybe better to not discus this theory because it never completed the reality!!!!
Tunde73
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 16:40
If scientific way or not, it is the same, important is to be clear for not create confusion.
Danny_57
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 19:54
Re:
Tunde73, 3-6-2010 16:40:
If scientific way or not, it is the same, important is to be clear for not create confusion.
So, simpley said, you educated people please explain it in a way that we simple people can understand it, or is that too much asked !!??
Sorry for all well intended educated people but tell us what is really going about we should be helped much.
I intend come to our level!! nothing more nothing less.
Tunde73
00giovedì 3 giugno 2010 21:43
Danny, also you wrote the things in a scientific way, you spook about epistasis. I only wanted correct that this recessive epistasis can be not paragoned with the dominance because we need 2 of that factor for have an effect as in the recessivity. For the rest i wrote in general, I never was contrary to explain in a not scientific way.
Danny_57
00venerdì 4 giugno 2010 09:37
Re:
Tunde73, 3-6-2010 21:43:
Danny, also you wrote the things in a scientific way, you spook about epistasis. I only wanted correct that this recessive epistasis can be not paragoned with the dominance because we need 2 of that factor for have an effect as in the recessivity. For the rest i wrote in general, I never was contrary to explain in a not scientific way.
In my Silkie page :
http://sites.google.com/site/zijdehoenders/t&dcreating/basics-about-chicken-color-genetics-heritage
I wrote for epistatic : "E" is a Dominant gene, "c" is a recessive gene but when the two "c" alleles comes together in one chick as "c/c" (homozygote recessieve white) it is EPISTASIS over the "E/E" (homozygote Dominant Black) and it will let see the recessive color white in the phenotype.
Epistasis: some genes (here c/c) overrule the effect of other genes (here E/E).
-This word "
overrule" or "
supression" one could simpely say that it "
Dominate" an other.
-I NOT wrote "kind of
Dominance" but I wrote "kind of
Dominant" is a difference.
-In scientific signification it is incorrect but in reality it was what a breeder see.
-I not wanted to give a long scientific confusing explination.I only wanted to let see the things "simple" and understandable for everybody. If we could put or brains together for this instead of discussing over details we could all be happy and make also others happy, maybe.
I surely still want to try
Ciao Danny