Mutation VS Hybrid (NOTE: Quite Long)

[Monica]

I remember somewhere where someone was completely against hybrids, and believed that mutations of a bird was basically a hybrid as well... At first it made absolutely no sense to me, however, as I learned more about their aspect of what hybred meant, I realized more what they were talking about, and understood their point of view. They gathered this information from a website (which I can't seem to find at the moment).

IMO, mutations is a term meaning a change of color, or a change within the genes that alters the color of the bird.

As for Hybrid, it means a cross between two different species (even if they might have been one species years ago) in one living animal. Depending on how close the parents may be related determines if the offspring are sterile (as in mules and donkeys) or if they are unsterile (as in catalinas and harliquins). Any sterile offspring (ones that cannot reproduce) are usually called mules (from what I've read), however, they don't always like to use this name, and so therefore give the offspring a new name. In animals that are not sterile (able to reproduce), they are given names (as in harliquins, catalinas, rubies, etc).

The person that was against mutations and hybrids, put simple, you are changing the genetic prints of the bird, as mutations might as well be hybrid, because you are altering the genes of the bird to create a different looking bird (as in blue budgies, white scarlet macaws, creamino lovebirds, etc). When a mutation occurs, the DNA of a bird may change some, or through the chromosomes... Another way to put this, you are "mutating" the bird and/or its offspring to look differently and it is now not pure, or true to its origions.


I probably have not explained this well, but maybe some yall can understand! I would like to now know what is everyone else's view of mutatiosn and hybrids. Below, I had added the dictionary terms that I got for both mutation, and hybrid...



mu·ta·tion

1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
3. Genetics.
a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
c.A mutant.
4. Linguistics. The change that is caused in a sound by its assimilation to another sound, such as umlaut.



hy·brid

1 Genetics. The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races.

2.
a. Something of mixed origin or composition.
b. Something, such as a computer or power plant, having two kinds of components that produce the same or similar results.
3. A word whose elements are derived from different languages.

[Graehstone]

The following is snipped from
http://www.harleysperch.com/hybrids.htm

The following are arguments commonly offered by people who oppose the creation and sale of hybrids in captivity:
1. Each bird that is bred to an individual of another species COULD have been breeding with a member of its own species and creating young that can help maintain genetic variability. (Remember that birds must form a bond with their mate, this takes time and is different from the more "casual" mating rituals of other species).
2. Each non-hybridized individual we have is a vessel that stores valuable genetic information. This genetic information may be used in the future to help natural populations recover from the damage that has been done by human intrusion (in the form of hunting, capturing birds for the pet trade, and destruction of habitat).
3. "Pure" (non-hybrid) birds are more beautiful than any hybrids anybody can create. Hybrids are aberrations that were not "meant to be."
4. If hybridization doesn't occur in the wild, it shouldn't be allowed to occur in captivity.
5. We still don't know a lot about breeding birds in captivity, in particular about the nutritional requirements of baby birds, and we may be using nutritionally incomplete formulas. Hybrid birds may have different requirements from what non-hybrids of either parent species are believed to need, and because of our ignorance we may not properly nurture hybrid offspring.
6. There is no way to ENSURE that a hybrid bird won't be bred. Even if the owner swears they won't breed the bird, unforeseen circumstances may come into play. Ask any breeder and they will tell you that many of their breeding birds were formerly pets: that means that a lot of birds DO get passed on to others. The same thing may happen with a hybrid, and the new owner may not be as careful about upholding the promise not to breed the bird.
7. The reports of hybrids parrots occurring in nature are rare, many such matings may have occurred due to human intervention or disturbance of natural habitats, or to people facilitating the mating of animals that would otherwise prefer to mate with their own species. Many such reports are anecdotal and unverified. Also, hybrids are rare and only occur in the zone where the geographic boundaries of two species meet. Hybridization is NOT a common occurrence nor is it part of the "natural scheme of things" in particular when the species involved DO NOT have overlapping geographical ranges!

People who don't think creating hybrids is a problem offer the following counterarguments (numbered in correspondence to the item they dispute):
1. Not all birds kept in captivity are capable of breeding. Hand-fed birds in particular seem to have a high incidence of showing no interest in bonding with members of their own species. Even if they were capable of breeding, their owners may not be interested in allowing them to be bred. Because of these variables, it is not truthful to say that each pet bird counts in this conservation effort.
2. There is no unified program controlling the matings that take place in captivity. For the most part, no records were kept of where the initial breeding stock originated, so for all practical purposes we may have lots of hybrids in the pet trade that are believed to be "pure" representatives of one species or another. Likewise, most breeders have not concerned themselves with preserving subspecies. In other words, the populations of birds that we have in captivity have, for the most part, an uncertain background and as such are useless in providing genetic material that can be traced back to a certain geographic region or another. If the anti-hybridization people don't feel these distinctions are important, then they should be just as happy with repopulating the habitats with whatever parrots can be had, regardless of their species or of whether they are hybrids.
3. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and some people DO like the coloration of some hybrids. For instance, there are many color mutations in some species of captive birds (e.g., budgerigars) that, although they didn't originate from hybridization, are very beautiful in their own right. Hybridization (mixing of genetic material from two distinct groups or species) has had a place in the domestication of every grain we eat and also played part in the domestication of most or all our farm and companion animals. Hybridization has been a key part of the domestication process and perhaps it will help us create pet birds that are more comfortable and happy in a human home.
4. There are lots of things that don't occur in the wild, like having a veterinarian care for the animals, and offering a balanced diet, and keeping the birds in human homes. Or keeping birds in cages and clipping their flight feathers. Captivity IS an unnatural circumstance, and whatever birds are bred in captivity are NOT "playing by the rules" that regulate the lives of wild birds. Because of this, we may in fact be breeding birds that won't have what it takes to survive in the wild.
5. Hybrid chicks seem to be doing just fine, if they weren't, they wouldn't be for sale and we wouldn't be having this discussion, right?
6. Hybrids occur in nature. Hybridization is natural. Don't accuse me of failing to care for my bird for the length of its lifespan, or of providing for its care if I can't do so, you don't know me, blah blah blah, et cetera.
7. There aren't that many hybrids being created, therefore their numbers don't pose a threat to any "domestic breeding for future repopulation" efforts. Besides, there will be no return to the natural world as it was, so we must start talking about modern evolution, which happens when humans intervene.

The counter-counter argument to that is something along the lines of: "fine, even if all that is true, AND the world is going to hell in a hand basket, AND there is a hole in the ozone, AND the rainforests are gone, not creating hybrids AT LEAST IT DOESN'T COMPOUND ON THE PROBLEM and COULD help preserve species as we know them."

I hope that confused matters a bit more :oops:
My personal opinion is that one should not "create" these birds. Just because one can does not mean one should.

[Monica]

I agree with you, that one should not create hybrids, however, I am not against any one experienced parrot breeders who may hybridize birds, and I am CERTAINLY NOT against the hybrid birds themselves as it was not their fault that they were created as they are. Of course there are birds who choose to hybridize on their own, without their humans acceptance. As it is, most of us, as human beings, are hybrids, but rather "in human language" we are of different nationalities. I myself am a Heinz 57 (like the ketchup ).

I don't know of many people who do hybridize, but I do know that Hill County Aviaries does hybridize some macaws, all the way down to 4th generations, if not further. Of course I do love their blue yellow naped amazons! Though, I see that the blue amazons are a deeper blue looking in color on the origional site, or from another site that there are pictures of them...

[The Outlaw]

I think that the individual bird that we fall in love with is what ultimately determines our opinions on this subject. Sometimes, we just don't know. My first parrot, Mai Tai, is a hybrid Grand/RS cross. I paid too much for her and didn't even know what an Eclectus was when I got her. Does it matter to me? Hell no. Would I breed her? Absolutely not. I do think its unethical. When I see what's happening in wild with the rapid destruction of habitat, I can see the writing on the wall. I don't think we should start creating "breeds" among species. I think we screwed up horribly in the dog and cat arena and wish we'd allow Nature the right to create the most perfect parrot possible. JMHO

[okieparrots]

eewww...I love this controversial subject...something about it really gets my interest for some reason.

I do think that the issue of hybridizing vs mutations is very different situations. Genetically a mutation of a Scarlet (the infamous white scarlet for instance) is still genetical purely Scarlet. But a hybrid, such as a Ruby macaw, is not genetically pure as to its species origins. It's true that most mutations aren't "wild type" occurances but the mutant birds, if not bred carefully, will produce wild type birds over generations. In other words, if you took several pairs of mutations and allowed them to breed without manipulation, eventually you would be back to "wild type" forms.

The same cannot be said for hybrids as once the genetics of another species are introduced that family line from the hybrid birds will always be impure and can never produce a genetically pure species again. You can breed it back out to produce what looks like a pure species, but genetically it won't really be so.

Interestingly there are some mutations that are known to occur in the wild. The Blue Yellow Naped Amazons that you mention at Hill Country Aviaries, for example, are a mutation that is known to occur in the wild and many of those birds in captivity actually wild caught themselves. (I'm not sure of the origins of Rick's pair as I didn't think to ask specifically about those two.)

[Monica]

I do realize about the blue yellow naped amazons, and that they were originally wild caught and brought into captivity to reproduce the mutation. That's the whole reason why I had to mention them.

As for mutations and hybrids, it is true, once a hybrid, always a hybrid, and mutations, true, you can go back to the "wild type" of color.


For dogs and cats, I'm not sure about cats, but dogs, in a sense, are all hybrids. They did originate from wolves, right? Ok, so, how many types of wolves are there??? If different species of wolves were domesticated, and bred together to create breeds, you now have a lost sense of where the dogs really did originate. I, too, agree that we have messed up the dogs and cats, and if I were to get a dog, I would prefer some type of alaskan dog (like an alaskan husky), or a pure bred wolf (saw some black pups in the ads once for $800). A pure bred wolf, though may be less predictable than that of a dog, does not have all the behaviors that we have bred into dogs...


And yes, it may depend on whether or not we get a hybrid, even if we don't know that it is one at first. I find that these comments are all great views and opinions on the mutation and hybrid theories.

[okieparrots]

That's an interesting discussion in itself about our modern day dogs lineage. I've heard and read several times the comment that all our dogs originated with a single species which was selectively bred to produce our modern day breeds. I've always disagreed with that theory as I just haven't ever been able to accept that all the traits found in todays breeds came from the same species.

Dr. Paul Welch spoke at our bird club last fall and made a comment during a discussion portion that todays companion dogs all originated from three different species. Today they've been hybridized so long that they are considered one species. For a companion I would choose a "breed" over a wild type species any day.

The domestication process which has resulted in our various breeds of dogs has resulted from each breed being selectively raised for specific traits. Part of that process has also bred them to work with humans as companions, in one way or another. Wild dogs, pure wolves for instance, don't have those thousands of years of breeding to select tempermant and disposition which would make them dangerous as a companion. Their instincts are still geared for wild living.

Of course such a thought line might be used in support of hybridizing parrots. In hundreds of years could it be possible to have selectively bred our beloved companions to produce a bird that is geared, instinctively, to live with people as a companion? Right now our parrots really aren't so. They are incredibly adaptable and learn to live with us unpredictable humans, but as many of their behavioral problems reveal, they still aren't instintively equipped to do so. We are only a few generations, at best, into raising most species in captivity so have a long way to go before we could consider them to be "domesticated." (cockatiels and budgies being a possible exception).

Interesting thoughts for sure...

[blueroseaviary]

I know with parrotlets that blue color mutations were wild caught and imported. The predators that are supposed to pick off the mutations missed a few.

I don't think that there is anything morally wrong with breeding color mutations. However, I do feel that care should be taken to also preserve the normal "wild type" colored birds. I plan on having a few color mutation pairs, but am concentrating mostly on the normal green birds. Which IMO are the most beautiful.

[robotralph]

Heinz 57 is a reference to their 57 types of pickles all the other stuff came much later.