Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#102400 - 02/22/12 10:33 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
HTUL said
"The major point made though (as has previously also been made by Kazjaps) is that none of these later studies have focused on stocks DEFINED as ey (eg. Smyth's or Morejohn's ey) or even from stocks shown from test-crossing to behave as recessive wheaten: only use of breeds (and not even the same stocks of those breeds) where "ey" had previously been extracted by previous researchers."

And maybe they just missed having it in their test subjects as you suggest. But I doubt that birds with Wheaten that appears recessive are so uncommon as to be easily left out of their testing.
And I will look foolish when in a few years they announce the discovery of the sequence for ey ;-)
But if they dont and there is only one Wheaten sequence, which is really incomplete dominant (like all the other alleles of the E locus) and appears one way or the other in various combinations, then it becomes a matter of perspective where you place it in the series.
And since ey was first 'identified' and named, then that symbol would have precendence?

Top
#102407 - 02/23/12 06:24 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3228
Loc: Netherlands
Terry, can I ask what your eb breed/color was?

Top
#102409 - 02/23/12 08:00 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3825
Loc: Denmark
Originally Posted By: Terry
I am not saying any researchers are lying


Hi Terry, I know you're not. God forbid I made an impression of 'accusing' you for it.

Here is my result of crossing an e+/e+ cock to a pure Columbian Leghorn hen. The hen had rather strong black markings so she could have been eb, or eb/wheaton split.




Here is a result from the reciprocal cross : Columbian cock on a batch of duckwings. The cock was hatched nearly white, so I assumed he was on wheaton. Then he got partly dark underfluff, so he may also be split. Out of ca 10 pullets, there was no significant differences among them.






Here is the cock , he looks wheaton to me(very little black on the hackles)




Underfluff:


As far as the wheaton is concerned , the dominant 'sentiment' here on this forum has been that eWh was a REAL one, and ey is non-existing, although the publicized documentation is only for the opposite.

Do I recall correctly that it was Henk who posted a picture of a silver duckwing with one dose of Co on BYC, where the only effect was a white breast, everything else was unchanged?
Was she e+e+ Co/co+? If yes, will you post it here again,please, I can't find it again.


Top
#102410 - 02/23/12 08:34 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3228
Loc: Netherlands
I only have a little video of her:
http://edelras.nl/video/Dutch_drinking.wmv

windows media video
Another hen did not have the pseudo duckwing

Top
#102412 - 02/23/12 12:28 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Wieslaw Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 09/18/09
Posts: 3825
Loc: Denmark
Thank you!!

Top
#102413 - 02/23/12 12:47 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Henk,

There is another pic of yours that I am thinking of that may be relevant here:



from: Am I silver quail? (but also described elsewhere - I recall she was a eWh het, having a buff parent?)

Top
#102418 - 02/23/12 06:05 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Henk69]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
Henk
The eb I spoke of was my Modern Bantams, attached photo. Your question made me reassess whether they are true eb or not. No salmon breast but come to think of it, the chick down is more like e+ than eb.
Either way, they still behave dominant to the Wheaten I have
Attached photo to consider

Top
#102420 - 02/23/12 06:17 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Wieslaw]
Terry Offline
Bantam

Registered: 02/19/12
Posts: 47
Loc: Qld Australia
Wieslaw

When I look at all these photos, they all show an intermediate phenotype of some sort, which comes back to an incomplete dominance relationship.

But, the other consideration that has occured to me is the relative weigh that is placed upon down colour versus adult colour. Since the E locus was originally named based upon down colour, no doubt heavy emphasis is given to this by scientists and many others.

Whereas coming from a different perspective, I would place much less emphasis on down alone and give a greater value to the adult plumage pattern. Some of these photos we have been shown would have wheaten down at hatch, yet develop significant melanin in their plumage as an adult. So do you call them eWh because they looked like that at a day of age or e+ because they look that way for the rest of their life?

Its that matter of perspective again, which is no doubt why the issue will never be resolved.

P.S. my mating of 'Partridge' Moderns x Wheaten had 'chipmunk' down pattern as well as adult 'Partridge' colour

Top
#102430 - 02/23/12 09:28 PM Re: ey revisited [Re: Terry]
Htul Offline
Coop Keeper

Registered: 03/02/07
Posts: 495
Loc: Australia
Terry,

Your pic of your light sussex X SG dorking hen is rather reminiscent of a silver version of the following pekin wheaten/wildtype het posted by choc in "e+/ewh - what does it look like?" (I've put them together for comparison):



as well as being reminiscent of the two pullets from Henk: the second pullet is probably the most valid comparison, due, as you have outlined to the presence of Co which could otherwise confound things. Co has been previously documented to produce "mossiness" in the presence of e+ - which would also be consistent with what you are seeing in your hen.

However, I would agree that e+/eWh is a co-dominant relationship rather than a true dominance/recessive mode of inheritance. This is not the (apparent) case with Morejohn's recessive wheaten-carrying junglefowl.

re: the modern game cross between wheaten and 'partridge' ('partridge' is one of those unfortunate terms that means completely different things to different people - and could be either be e+ or eb accordingly): the hen looks like she has a salmon breast - is this in fact the case?

Also, eb chicks can vary widely in their appearance: from practically "e+-like" to being quite distinct from e+: however, I believe e+ chicks (in the absence of other modifiers) should not have a broken eyestripe or headstripe, which otherwise can sometimes be found in e+-like eb chicks.

re: "And maybe they just missed having it in their test subjects as you suggest. But I doubt that birds with Wheaten that appears recessive are so uncommon as to be easily left out of their testing."

This is my exact issue: the only paper that does mention the sequencing of eWh Line et al (2003) makes very little mention of the provenance of the birds used for their sequencing studies nor indeed why they were chosen as representatives of eWh and ey, other than to mention, as an entry into a table under "Line" (corresponding to the entry for ey/eWh): "NHR, RIR, Buff Min(eWh)" - indeed, it is just assumed knowledge that the reader will presume this to mean New Hampshire Red, Rhode Island Red and Buff Minorca - presumably these birds were chosen to represent eWh and ey based on Brumbaugh and Hollander's (1965) description of the finding of ey in some of these breeds (but were they from the same stock? from the same lines? - who knows?: and in all likelihood, probably not). There is then also a little footnote to the table which mentions: "Note that ewh and ey are identical in amino acid sequence" without specification as to which birds were designated ey and which were designated eWh and if there were any phenotypic basis on which this assumption had been drawn (other than breed of origin).

Another issue (that I don't believe anybody has ever resolved) is why the amino acid sequence for the MC1R gene product from the eWh of Ling is identical to that specified by Takeuchi et al (1996) for brown leghorns, nor why the ey of Takeuchi et al's (1996) "Nagoya Cortins" (probably Nagoya cochins)has been completely ignored even though the amino acid sequence of this is distinct from that of eWh (as also mentioned in MC1R: 32 E locus "alleles"/variants....?! (where the eWh designation was incorrectrly attributed to Kerje et al ) and MC1R: molecular evidence for the existence of ey?

PS: I've also sent you a PM which can be accessed through the "My stuff" tab > Messages

Regards,
htul

Top
#102436 - 02/24/12 12:20 AM Re: ey revisited [Re: Htul]
Henk69 Offline
Moderator
Classroom Professor

Registered: 02/13/06
Posts: 3228
Loc: Netherlands
Originally Posted By: Htul
Henk,

There is another pic of yours that I am thinking of that may be relevant here:



from: Am I silver quail? (but also described elsewhere - I recall she was a eWh het, having a buff parent?)


Well, this one is a het wheaten.
The e+/e+ Co/co+ pullets were dramatically darker stippled on the back; the main difference with the co+/co+ siblings being that the salmon breast area was completely white.
Very attractive i.m.o.

Top
Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >


Moderator:  Admin @ The Coop, Henk69 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 39 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box