birding-aus

Re "Native Australian budgerigars are blue in colour"

To: Birding Aus <>
Subject: Re "Native Australian budgerigars are blue in colour"
From: Andrew Hobbs <>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:18:22 +0900
Hi again,

I would like to add to my previous posting that the point about mutations producing new colors versus mutations preventing the production of a pigment is rather a semantic one, though in some circumstances an important one.

Cheers

Andrew

Andrew Hobbs wrote:
Hi,

I would disagree with Phillip's sentence 'There is also the aspect that "mutations have produced a wide range of new colours" is at least in most cases wrong as well '

If a bird is green because it produces a blue and yellow pigment, and a mutation gives rise to a blue bird, then the mutation has given rise to a new color; The mutation may have caused the loss of yellow pigment as he clearly points out in the rest of the paragraph, but it has definitely given rise to a new color, one that didn't exist before (at least in this bird).

Secondly I am intrigued by the sentence " ......... before such wide publicity of the appalling non-scientific methodology used in the whole peppered moth saga was exposed, .................." about the paragraph which is quoted as

"Only very rarely does a mutational change assist an organism to survive. In the case of the Biston betularia moth, for example. it is ""thought"" that the black variety originally arose as a result of a mutation. This mutation proved to be beneficial for the moth, as its environment was changing at the same time.........."

What exactly is this "appalling non-scientific methodology" with regard to the peppered moth.

Andrew Hobbs


Michael Tarburton wrote:
 g'day All

Phillip veerman & I have engaged in a little dialogue about the text (& what they might have meant) that made this claim. Some clarifications have been made that might be of some use to some of you so I forward them to the list.

Cheers

Mike Tarburton

Hi Mike,
Thanks for that. It appears that I was on the right track partly because I was wondering WHY a book would make such a statement, as in why would a text book bother to mention what colour budgerigars are. Even if the point is worth making, it is very poor quality research, understanding and/or editing. There is also the aspect that "mutations have produced a wide range of new colours" is at least in most cases wrong as well In terms of the word "produced". Most (or all?) the colour variants that are now established in captive populations are not the result of producing new colours as much as loss of the ability to make the standard colours. So blue birds are blue not because of a new gene producing blue but due to the loss of the ability to make yellow pigment, so that the parts that normally show as green now show as blue, the genes to produce the blue structural colour were always there. Likewise yellow birds are yellow not because of a new gene producing yellow but due to the loss of the ability to make blue structural colour, so that the parts that normally show as green now show as yellow, the genes to produce the yellow were always there. These are the most basic features, there are many other variants further enhancing those two.

This principle comes in potentially useful in regard to a wild bird of any species that has colouration different from the normal. Of course hybridisation is another quite different source of oddities.

Maybe this extra comment could go to the B-A list to fill in the story. That is up to you, as in you first put it on.

Philip



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU