Thoughts on Hybrids and Mutations

[Graehstone]

What are the differences between Hybrids and Mutations, why would one be wrong and the other not or are they both wrong or right. I admit that I do not know enough about Genetics to be able to make an informed contribution here, but I never the less do not think that either of them should be messed with. Mutations stand no chance of survival in the wild, zero, zip, nada, ok; we are not talking Wild critters here but still. They were never meant to be.
A Hybrid is man made and was also never meant to be. I think we should leave well enough alone and not try to play “supreme being” and “make” a bird that suits us, rather we should be putting all that effort into conserving what we already have.
Check out the CITES list and see how many of our “pet birds” are on the endangered list.
Go to the library or bookstore and read Tony Junipers book “Spix’s Macaw, The race to save the worlds rarest bird”, educate yourselves, get information from several sources before making up your minds.
Look at the dogs and cats that we have created, not one of them is a “true” breed of dog, simply because there is no such thing as a “dog as we know it” in nature, they are all descendents of Wolves crossed with … what, Fox’s or Dingo’s or what have you, to create the modern dog as we know it today. Along come all the problems like hip trouble for German Sheppard’s, diabetes for Chows’ for all I know and a litany of other ailments and disease prone animals that have special needs for their type of “dog” or “cat”.
We now have the “Munchkin” a cat bred to have stubby legs, why? Because it’s cute and profitable, and not because it can outrun mice, which it now can’t
There is no such thing as a pure bred dog or cat; they are all just consistently bred hybrids and mutations. I for one do not wish to see our Birds, Parrots in particular, go down that road. When I look up into the sky I want to be able to say “Look, there fly’s a flock of Scarlet Macaws, or Golden Conure’s” and not “Oh look, pretty birds …” because they are unidentifiable.
I too feel that before my life is over, and I pray the good Lord give me a long one, that many of the birds we now take for granted and have as pets will no longer be living in the wild. Like I said, educate yourselves and see if you can find out how many species of animals and Parrots for that matter are becoming extinct on a daily basis, I could tell you but you would not believe me, so find out for yourselves, you will be shocked and amazed. So, I think our efforts should be aimed at keeping what we have and not at what we can create.
The mutations and hybrids I have seen are stunning to say the least, and eye candy for sure, but at what cost … do we really need them?
These are my opinions only and no one else’s, just my two cents on this topic.
I do not condemn anyone for believing otherwise, or those that have mutations or hybrids as pets; I just think we as a Race should be about protecting and not creating.

[ClippedWings]

"Mutations stand no chance of survival in the wild, zero, zip, nada, ok; we are not talking Wild critters here but still. They were never meant to be. "

If you believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution then your statement is untrue.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic MUTATIONS occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

So does this mean parrots and birds that we have are mutations from natural selection, Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest? If so, you have a mutated parrot. OH NO, THAT IS AGAINST MY BELIEVES

[The Outlaw]

I agree with you, totally, Greah. As for Darwin's Natural selection, what is normally the oddity about mutations in the big birds is their unusual coloration. That is what seperates them from the rest of the flock and ultimately gets the at the head of the line for guest of honor at the predators dinner. They stand out too much and are easily spotted. They simply don't normally blend in with their surroundings as do their normal
counterparts.

If you'll notice the undersides of birds, they are designed to blend in with their surroundings. Even brightly colored birds have shadings under wings and tails often entirely different from their tops. That's to help camoflage them in the jungle canopy.

Floor dwelling birds are camoflaged from the top.

Now, for one moment, think of how well either of the mutations of BG macaws that I posted in another thread would blend in with THEIR environments? Also, they'd have to convince another bird to even be their mate and risk producing babies that would also be a high risk.

One of the reasons that mutations often don't survive in the wild is because the parents PURPOSELY destroy them so that they don't attract attention to their nest. In fact, to save a hen from predation chicks are often sacrificed when a nest is even discovered.

THAT is part of natural selection. And THAT is why it works.

THE OUTLAW

[Sherri]

Hybrids are when you take 2 different birds and breed them together. Most Hybrids do not happen in the wild. Such as Breeding an Umbrella with a Moluccan. I think some Macaws will cross breed in the wild but most birds will not. A lot of Hybrids are born "sterile" and cannot reproduce. Something in the mix just wasn't what God intended, eviidently.
If it doesn't happen naturally, in the wild, I personally do not believe it should be done.
Mutations are taking recessive traits of the same species and trying to make that trait dominant. Although I have a beautiful Lutino Cockatiel I wonder if this is a good idea. Bringing out recessive traits also delvelops a weaker species. Lutiono's have shorter lifespans, most have bald spots etcc... Lutino's are beautiful, but I just don't know.......
Although I do not believe in evolution and most of Darwins ideas, I do believe in Survial of the Fittest. A weak bird will not survice in the wild. So why produce them in captivity?

[The Outlaw]

Sherri:

You are absolutely correct. Many hybridized macaws are sterile and have emotional and physical shortcomings. If you think of albinism (creatures without color pigmentation) and how rare they are, you start to understand color mutations. If it were to become a dominant gene naturally, we'd all be walking around with ice blue eyes and snow white hair and no skin pigmentation. As you may or may not know, albinos are cursed with many, many problems. In cats, it usually means deafness. In humans, it means eye and skin problems and I think liver dysfunction, too. I don't remember off the top of my head. Even albino lab rats and mice have shorter lifespans than their normally pigmented cousins. However, they aren't bred to live a long time.

And that's another reason hybridizing is a problem. It usually results in a beautiful bird, with possible health and emotional problems and a shorter lifespan. How is that a better bird?

For the record, though hybridizing of macaws in the wild HAS happened on occasion, you'll notice there aren't HUGE flocks of hybrids flying. Doesn't that seem at all strange to you? Birds like all other creatures will use whatever they have to reproduce. If there aren't enough BG macaws in a region and there are willing scarlets or GWs, then its the BEST they can do to select a partner from another species. Remember, crossing species is more like a human and a monkey than crossing an african american and a caucasian. We are talking SPECIES, not races. A lion and a tiger is another good example. You can do it, but why? You create a huge cat (much, much larger than its tiger parent) with all kinds of health problems.

You have to remember how hard it is to raise a clutch of baby macaws to really understand how complicated the procedure is. And, with snakes, cats, man and so many other predators climbing your tree as WELL as other parrots killing your chicks (the hornbills eat baby macaws) and other breeding pairs needing a nestsite, its amazing that any survive. That is why the future of birds rests in our hands. We can improve it or destroy it. Its our call.


THE OUTLAW

[Graehstone]

Clippedwings, I really don't understand how you came to the presumptions that your answer to my post is based on and solicited. I might not have been as "explanatory" as I should have been, but then I think that The OutLaw did an exemplary job of filling in the (obvious) blanks I left open. This has in no way shape or form anything to do with anyones "beliefs" as far as religion is concerned. I was merely stating my personal opinion on the subject matter.

[ClippedWings]

You stated " Mutations stand no chance of survival in the wild, zero, zip, nada, ok; we are not talking Wild critters here but still. They were never meant to be. "

But Darwin's Theory of Evolution states all animals have at one point mutated naturally in the wild. So when you state " Mutations stand no chance of survival in the wild.......They were never meant to be." how could this be? The parrot you have mated with another parrot. When they mate the offspring you get is genetically mutated because you only get 50% of the genes from the male and 50 % from the female. Genetically, out of 4 offspring you will get 1- 100% possibility carrying the dominant traits, 2- 50% possibility carrying the dominant/ recessive trait, or 1- 100% carrying the recessive trait. So if you are against mutations then there is a possiblity that your bird has been naturally breed but is mutated and carrying recessive traits that will give your bird a lesser life span. But you still love your bird. So what if it is mutated. Humans have evoluted through mutation. Everything we eat affects us these days. Kids are getting bigger and stronger. Food is mutated and then we eat it. So you better not eat food. IT's genetically engineered thru mutation. You better buy Organic food or you will be mutated or have mutated offspring

You say that bird are becoming extinct. So by humans breeding them is ok? I agree that human breeding them so that they don't become extinct is ok but as you will know they are mutated to adapt to this environment.

[ClippedWings]

Outlaw, if the mutations are sacraficed as you say then why do scientist discover never variations of a species of bird everyday ! Read American Genetic Science Journals of Discoveries. Mutations occur because of environmental changes and the weaker ones can not survive. The stronger offspring has the genes to survive and then they pass this on to their offspring. The parrot you have is most likely MUTATED and have the genes that make it stronger to survive in this environment.

[Graehstone]

Now we are quibbling about semantics.

Let me put it this way ... Normal colored B&G Macaw = Good
Albino "colored" B&G Macaw = Bad

The "good" being what is supposed to be (by which ever standard you wish to go by)
The "bad" being not what is supposed to be (again, by which ever standard you wish to go by)

The "good" will survive to pass it's genes on to the next generation.
The "bad" is ... lunch (in the wild) (thought I would clarify that, seeing as how things can get ... misunderstood on the net)

Again, some clarification here, the above comments by this writer are ment to be understood as Birds in the Wild.

I thought that Nancy did a splendid job of explaining.
Remember we are talking about breeding birds that were never ment to be and do not occur in the wild in the numbers that we see them in captivity.
This has nothing to do with what that Charlie dude said.

Seriously, do you really think a pied Senegal stands a chance at survival in the wild to pass on it's genes? I don't.

Again, I feel the need to reitterate that I started this thread pertaining to Man-Made (bred) birds and not those as a result of "natural selection".

[Tiki]

I can only speak about cockatiels-all the beautiful mutations you see today are man-made, they have been bred from the normal grey cockatiel. Most of the people in my bird club are interested in "improving the standard" of cockatiels and producing rare mutations. Pastelfaces seem to be the latest craze. It is pretty easy to predict what mutation a pair of tiels will produce by their genetic history. I do think it is kind of sad that normal grey cockatiels are "out of style" and valued less than say a whiteface or pastelface. They are all beautiful.

The main issue I would have is when breeders become so obsessed with maintaining or improving the "standard" that they cull birds with undesirable traits such as poor colouring, crossed wings, bald patches, etc. These birds could have a happy home as pets, but certain breeders here don't even give them the chance (as I posted in the White African Grey thread). I think that breeders need to take responsibility for any life they create-THEY are the ones who put a pair of birds together to mate. It is not the bird's fault his wings are crossed at the tips. None of my birds were chosen for their colouring (but I'm not a breeder), I am attracted more to the personality and my tiels have that in spades.