Selective Breeding/ Home Page / Nestling Attributes/ Combination Mutations / Colony Breeding /Hybridization/ Excess Birds/ Primary Mutations /



Please remember that this site is provided for breeder interaction and discussion. The opinions, processes, methodology AND QUESTIONS are the result of experience or of theory.  They are here for discussion purpose ONLY ! Please do not assume that because they are posted they will benefit you without careful selection and historical knowledge of your own birds... this would be an erroneous assumption.  If something appears interesting or different, please seek further clarification through questions rather than haring off after an ill-conceived thought or idea.

Please remember that questions and answers are sent from all over the world, and some may not necessarily apply to your situation.

        I noticed not many question or imputs in Longfeather Questions   This not very surprising for ruckus on bird's origins.  I read your opinion and say I agree with much.  I notice you don't talk about mess in nest.  Discussion many years on bird - longfeather: Size of body, need new band size and parents,

I can provide following informations for you:

Someone need to talk about longfeather and origins.  Good site !

A1    Thank you very much.

        I apologize for the delay in getting this posted, but I have been fairly busy.  Your information in very helpful and it would imply that the longfeather is not only a hybrid, but that it is an incomplete hybrid.  If it produces as significant variation in the offspring as you imply, the progenitors must have been very different in size.  As I understand it,  the longfeather appears larger than the "normal" roseicollis for a number of reasons, not necessarily height alone.  The big and small decription is not very helpful in regard to deciphering parentage, as people have various views on what constitutes significant differences.  If you have numbers you can send, those will be more helpful and definitive than descriptive adjectives.  A hybrid that has been developed, even a transmutation (eye rings), will usually pass on color and other traits with a fair degree of regularity when contained within a "hybrid" population, with little significant alteration in chick size, but with occasional atavism.  However, a hybrid turned loose in a normal population would tend to have offspring of a normal size with the same species but the offspring would be unusual in other ways: markings, color, beak, behavior etc...   crosses between F1s (siblings) will often bring any unusual linkage to the surface, and if not the F2s most certainly will.

Deeper and earlier forehead coloring could occur through a selection process, so that is not altogether helpful, but it does suggest a significant amount of inbreeding and selection was performed.  This would be in keeping with selection for a larger bird, as is the buff coloring.  Do you know if the large, buff colored bird is still around or has it been replaced by the Longfeather.  Was the large buff feathered bird ever displayed in shows and are there pictures of it in past show bulletins.  If it was a large roseicollis, some attention should have been paid to its size, even if it was to disqualify it from competition.  Can you check to see if any of this literature remains and you can photograph in on a digital camera?  Who was the breeder ?  What year was the bird involved in shows and do you know which ones ?  The bird may have been entered in juvenile and adult sections: some documentation should exist.

Did the breeder ever talk about how the color was reintroduced into the large, dull roseicollis ?  This would not have been that easy from all of the descriptions of the "Standard Roseicollis".  It is very useful to know that someone did indeed concentrate on a larger roseicollis and achieved that goal but only with an absence of color (buff and dull).  I couldn't  see how it could be otherwise.  Specificity around shows and entry dates for the large dull bird and its breeder will assist in determining the time frame for which the breeder had an opportunity to re-introduce color into the bird, but the inbred buff feathering would be problematic, as would large bone structure in the hen.  Are there many "there" that don't want to talk about it because they know what it is or is there another reason ?  Respect for the breeder ?

The failure of the bird to produce like young would imply that the bird is an incomplete hybrid and was put on the market to soon, or was outcrossed, almost immediately, into existing pure lines of normal roseicollis.  If this  was so, the F1 would look fairly uniform, while any attempts to backcross or inbreed would result in wide variation in the young ( as you seem to imply).  Those longfeather that produced young similar to themselves need to be clearly identified, as they are the base hybrid and as such may be used to ensure the continuity of the variety, unless that is already assured by people's familiarity with what they have.  Any pictures you may have of the varied size of the young would be welcome.

It is interesting that for a bird that is so popular in Europe, there are few pictures on the web.  It is also interesting in all of my literature searches on the web, there is no mention of the Longfeather except in two articles and 2 web sites (that I can find).  The Opaline or Rose-headed, in contrast to the Longfeather is everywhere.

I will search for the US site, it may be a yahoo group or LIST rather than a web site.  Let me know if you have any success with my requests.  Sorry for the number.

Qlast to date

Alast to date


Disclaimer of Liability: All information contained in this web site is provided in good faith. While I have attempted to make the information in this and associated documents as accurate as possible, I give no guarantee as to the accuracy or currency of any information provided through this service or found as a consequence of this service nor for any loss or damage resulting from any such information. Furthermore, I do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information contained within.

Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name , trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by me.

Please e-mail any questions or responses you might have.