upatsix.com - Your Source For Pet Bird Information

I just got a scarlet baby and she has greenish feathers on the back of her head/neck. Wondering if when she molts will the feathers come in all red??

Now days not all birds are 100% their species. Your baby may have a cross breed in its back ground. Ive bred B&Gs but not scarlets but my friend has some.. Ive never seen this but maybe someone else may have. It could be a mutaion. I have a senegal that has yellow all over his back which is suppose to be green. I think it makes him more special that the other senegals. I guess you will find out when she goes through a adult molt. Enjoy her beauty. Mark

nikevijo wrote:I just got a scarlet baby and she has greenish feathers on the back of her head/neck. Wondering if when she molts will the feathers come in all red??

My purebred Scarlet, Ceilidh, had green feathers on his nape. By his second molt, they were gone, replaced by the bright red feathers one expects. That said, I've seen a few other purebred Scarlets who retain a bit of green into adulthood. My other purebred Scarlet, Rowan, is just now going through her first molt, and has no green feathers on her nape. Never has.

Of my 2 Scarlet hybrids, the red-dominant Camelot has a green nape, but the yellow-dominant Capri does not. No green anywhere on him, in fact--just orange and yellow, with blue flight feathers and a yellow tail.

Thanks Irish I was hoping someone with a scalet would respond because I dont know it all. You have a beautiful flock. Wish I had more room.

marky wrote:Thanks Irish I was hoping someone with a scalet would respond because I dont know it all. You have a beautiful flock. Wish I had more room.

You're welcome. I wish _I_ had more room! There would be a few more Scarlets and maybe another Hy in residence if we did .

I know what you mean. If I had the money and the room I would have a house full of bird. Im disability retired now. My B&G keeps me from getting deprested .She is so fun. Ive always wanted a scarlet but my wife told me when I retired I could have all the birds I wanted . Now she says one macaw is enought .Have a good day Mark

nikevijo wrote:I just got a scarlet baby and she has greenish feathers on the back of her head/neck. Wondering if when she molts will the feathers come in all red??

Hi and what an interesting question.

I have three scarlets and three scarlet hybrids.

I've read that there are three different types of scarlets. The Mexican which is the most common. The Mexican look like your "typical scarlets". The Central American Scarlets are the largest with the largest band of yellow and longest tail feathers.

The third kind is the South American Scarlet (SAS), frequently referred to as a Bolivian Scarlet (due to its point of export). The SAS defining characteristic is the patch of turquoise on the nape of the neck. Something that I've noticed (but not read anywhere) is that the SAS also seem to have more of an orangey appearance to the feathers when compared to the other varieties of Scarlets.

Two of my scarlets appear to be of the Mexican variety with one of them the SAS variety.

HOWEVER, in really bright light my male "Mexican" scarlet has a couple of turquoise colored feathers on his nape. Very few and only visible in bright light. He's about 5 years old. (The other two are adult breeders)

Many will tell you the three different varieties of scarlets is bunk. But base on my research and the purebreds in my home, I find the info to be credible. Well I'll buy along with that "school of thought" until I can find more definitive information the debunks the theory.

Hope this helped you out some. It is an excellent question that I'd love to hear more information on.

Hi r2r also alot of scalets birds in captivity are crossbred with there subspecies. and its hard to figure out which subspecies they are . But they are still beautiful.

marky wrote:Hi r2r also alot of scalets birds in captivity are crossbred with there subspecies. and its hard to figure out which subspecies they are . But they are still beautiful.

And that is a most excellent point! It also happens to be something I've put some thought in to.

I think that is a result of earlier breedings where supplies and awareness of the subspecies was limited or non-existent.

In the US, how many (sub) purebreds do you really think are out there? I fear they are far and very few in between with no real way of knowing for sure.

I wish I knew of some breeders that have lineage that goes back to wild caught AND can genetically verify the line.

Something else I've read (wish I could remember where) is that the turquoise will show up when breeding season starts regardless of sub status. This makes me question further. So is my 5 year old starting a hormonal response or is he a sub-hybrid? I'll never know.

What I do know is that should I decide to eventually pair him up it will be with a scarlet of the "Mexican" variety to compliment his prominent lineage. As of now though I have no intentions of breeding him.

As far as I know, there is only one species of Scarlet Macaws...
http://www.arndt-verlag.com/projekt/bir ... =209_1.JPG

Yes, I am fully aware that many believe there to be subspecies of the scarlet... however one must take into account what makes a species and a subspecies. Maybe there really ARE subspecies, however as of yet theres nothing to say that there is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

Therefore, I believe the differences we are seeing within scarlet macaws (as well as blue and golds) we could probably attribute to genetic diversity within a species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity

Hi r2r I was reading a article about scarlets. The auther was going to all the countries that had scralets . He had all the info on the three basic subspecies. The Mexican, The Panama and countries around it and the Bolivian But when he got to Bolivia This bird boker was showing him the scarlets and some looked like the panama and colunbain subspies. It confused him On a nother trip he was back in panama talking to a big bird broker . The man told him he was sending birds to bolivia because there was a ban in his country on selling birds to the USA . But there was no ban on Bolivia to sell bird to the USA at that time. So now days who knows the origan of our birds family. In my area alot of B&G owner ask me where my B&G came from. She is bigger than most around here and her blue is very light aquamarine blue and her yellow is more of a orange gold. She looks just like her parents and they came in from Mexico. The biggest B&G comes from Bolivia but they are blue blue on there backs and light yellow on the breast . Josies size and wieght matches the Bolivian but her color is different. Its hard to tell which subspecies our birds come from they are all crossed up But it dosent really matter

Marky, here's the article!

http://www.voren.com/96-02.htm

Do more surfing and you will find more info. Ive found 7 article that said there are three subspecies of scarlets . The scalet Bolivia macaw is smaller can have blue and green on the back neck and has green and blue in the yellow in the wings and the body red is a darker orange red. Then there is a mexican and a central American. You dont have to believe this but I do.

MFids wrote:As far as I know, there is only one species of Scarlet Macaws...

As far as I can see, no one ever argued otherwise!

Yes, I am fully aware that many believe there to be subspecies of the scarlet... however one must take into account what makes a species and a subspecies. Maybe there really ARE subspecies, however as of yet theres nothing to say that there is...

[...]

Therefore, I believe the differences we are seeing within scarlet macaws (as well as blue and golds) we could probably attribute to genetic diversity within a species

We need not take into account what defines a species, because it is not a subject of debate: No one is arguing that there is more than one species of scarlet macaw. Meanwhile, subspecies do represent [a type of] genetic diversity within a species, so "attributing it to genetic diversity" doesn't answer the question. Members of different subspecies (obviously and by definition) are members of the same species, with all that this implies (including, but not limited to, viable interbreeding; reproductive isolation is a mark of species barrier).

The Wikipedia article you cite does make one point very lucidly, however:

...to be regarded as different groups rather than as a single varied group, the difference must be distinct, not simply a matter of continuously varying degree.

In other words, what distinguishes a subspecies is that the genetic variation within the species can be systematically classified into distinct groups. There may or may not be any morphological changes at all; on the other hand there can be morphological changes so gross as to convince people that they are members of different species, until DNA analysis can be performed (or interbreeding is observed).

This presents a bit of a problem, of course, since (again, by definition) there is nothing to prevent members of different subspecies of the same species to interbreed where their ranges overlap:

A polytypic species has two or more races or subspecies. These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which would interbreed freely if given the chance to do so. Note that groups which would not interbreed freely, even if brought together such that they had the opportunity to do so, are not races: they are separate species.

("Races" is here used interchangeably with "subspecies". We could quibble about this, but the difference between terms such as "race", "strain", "breed", and "subspecies" is so trivial, and so subject to debate in every single instance, that to do so would be nothing but a waste of time.)

Whether or not the species then be classified as different subspecies or a continuously varying population will then depend on factors such as how much they interbreed, how much the ranges overlap, how many of these interbreedings are observed, the taxonomic bias and inclinations of the classifying biologists, and so forth. Attempting to make a cut-and-dry, black-and-white division and definition here is completely hopeless -- we should know this since Darwin's little pamphlet in 1859. Species definition can be cut-and-dry -- sometimes; if intermediates are all extinct. (Ring species are a counterexample.) Subordinate taxonomic divisions cannot, and in many cases, the number of subspecies into which a species is divided depends more on the divider than the 'dividees'.

Hey Petter Do you have a bird yet, What kind is it