upatsix.com - Your Source For Pet Bird Information

Regarding genetic incompatibility, mismatched genes of different-but -related species can occur, when the specific genetic information is located on different parts of the chromosome strands, and this can result in deformity and sterility. Simply, the genetic information becomes a tangled mess, even if there appears to be a matching number of chromosomes for both parents. I suspect that this is the case of the sun/green-cheek hybrids.

I don't know what to title this, and I do not own any hybrid macaws and I am kinda new to this to be honest. (about a year of experience) But I can not speak against hybrid birds as I am a "hybrid" myself. If we want to point fingers and play ethics then I think we should go to the source. There would be no "problem" or debate about hybrids if we as humans would of left these birds were they belong. (In the wild) but as we usually do, we interveened and took some of these birds into captivity. That to me is where the biggest ethical issue happend...What right did we have to take a wild animal and try to domesticate it? We didn't, but we did. Now, we have many 3rd, 4th, and so on captivity bred generations of macaws in captivity. These birds fall through the hands of more then 1 person in thier long lives, (almost always) and we are worried about pure bred versus hybrids? Who cares, let he (or she) on this board who can show me a 100% pure background of one race step foward to say that they disagree. To me, these birds deserve the right to do everything they would do in the wild, or as close to what they would of done in the wild as possible. Hybrid, or purebred is not important. These birds should never be introduced back into the wild for multiple reasons...As when the white man came to america, he killed many native americans because of the dieseses he carried they were not used to. So would some of these birds now in captivity. Birds from Africa, being exposed to birds from south america, living in north america, austrailia, indonesia, and so forth and so on. Now introducing one of these birds back into the wild in its native land would be a recipie for disaster if you ask me. What would it carry back to the native population? I don't know that answer, but I can gurantee it would carry something that probably shouldnt be there. So, back to hybrids....I don't think we should try and promote them to interbreed, but then again, I don't think we have the right to decide for a pair of macaws, if they are allowed to breed or not. If they pair, then who are we to say "no".? If we as humans choose to have more then one macaw (or other bird) in our home, and they pair up and try to breed, then what do we do? Take out the egg? Boil it? replace it with a chicken egg? What? Seems that we are taking one of the basic rights of anything alive away from these wonderful birds. The right to reproduce. Regardless of your or my ethics, if two different species of birds don't see a problem with it, then why should we? I have seen responses on here to preserve the pure line of these species, but that isn't even a 100% thing in the wild....even one occurance in the wild is enough to say that it does happen. It happens with us humans all the time. Black and white couples....For all of you Obama supporters, remember, he is a hybrid....(I know that is crude, but by definition, he, as well as I, and just about any person from the states) I guess to me, it is this. If the macaws are happy to pair up with a different species or macaw and breed, then why stop them? I sure hope it isn't because it isn't what "you" wanted them to do. We don't own our birds, we live with them, nuture them, provide for them, but we do not live for them....that they do themselves, and if they choose to breed with the same species, then great...and if not....then great....The bird made that choice, as it should....All I can do, as a person living in a home I share with birds it let them do what they want to do...in saying that...all my birds are pure bred...(two blue and golds, and a greenwing) and I hope they don't breed...my female blue and gold isn't physically ready to breed, as the previous owner stressed her out extremely badly, and I am lucky she is even alive.. the greenwing I am unsure if it is a male or female (I am leaning female) but I really don't care, and I have a male blue and gold as well. I am not a "breeder", I just choose to share my life with my birds. so, my stance is this, I neither support, nor protest hybridizing birds....all I do is let what is left of nature take its course....we screwed it up when we took em out of the wild... and since I am a product of europe (most of it anyway) I sure aint going to speak against a hybrid, as I am the definition of one, and to all of you who do promote pure breeding....Look around you, for all that you believe you are preserving.....If your kids come home and introduce you to their boy/girl friend and they are not of the same nationality your family is...then will you interveen there as well and stop them from pursuing a relationship? IF the answer is yes, then I understand your issues with hybrid birds...if your answer is no, I want my children to be happy, and follow their heart, then think of the double standard you have just set forth.

Have a good day everyone.
Jess

wvmacawlover wrote:But I can not speak against hybrid birds as I am a "hybrid" myself.

No you're not. You may be of mixed race, but we aren't talking about birds of mixed race, but hybrids of different species. The closest analogy with humans is a hypothetical hybrid of human and chimpanzee, or human and bonobo.

I don't think we have the right to decide for a pair of macaws, if they are allowed to breed or not. If they pair, then who are we to say "no".? If we as humans choose to have more then one macaw (or other bird) in our home, and they pair up and try to breed, then what do we do? Take out the egg? Boil it? replace it with a chicken egg?

I understand that boiling is the proper thing, as taking it out may promote further egg-laying...

Forget about hybrids for a moment: Just because two birds mate, that doesn't mean that raising their offspring is the right thing to do. You may feel that it's the nicer thing for the parent parrots, but the result will be a couple of parrot chicks who will grow up to be parrots who will live for decades -- perhaps nearly a century of they are macaws. Can you find them good, stable homes? As is often pointed out, there are plenty of birds in shelters and rescues.

I don't take a stance completely against breeding (although I understand and sympathise with those who do), but you should at the very least make an informed decision to breed and take care or find care for the offspring rather than go "Oh well, they mated, the choice is out of my hands".

Regardless of your or my ethics, if two different species of birds don't see a problem with it, then why should we?

Parrots are intelligent and wonderful animals, but they don't understand a few of the relevant concerns, such as conservation, genetic incompatibility and disorders, chromosomal differences, etc. For that matter, it isn't a choice the birds would make if left to their own devices in a natural environment. Cooped up in cages and houses, without a choice in natural mates but artificially close with members of other species, living with a plethora of strange and artificial stimuli -- I'd say they need our help in deciding.

I have seen responses on here to preserve the pure line of these species, but that isn't even a 100% thing in the wild....even one occurance in the wild is enough to say that it does happen. It happens with us humans all the time. Black and white couples....

It's very, very rare in the wild, and it isn't very successful or it would happen more often. Certainly interbreeding between different races, strains, or subspecies occurs, but interspecific hybrids are extremely rare, and intergeneric hybrids pretty much unheard of in the wild.

Children with black and white parents, sure; children of a man and a chimp, or your children dating a charming Ms. or Mr. Bonobo, not so much -- and I'm fairly sure we'd all frown upon it.

wvmacawlover wrote:... It happens with us humans all the time. Black and white couples ... all I do is let what is left of nature take its course....we screwed it up when we took em out of the wild... I want my children to be happy, and follow their heart...

Thanks, Jess and Petter. The confusion of mixed race children and hybrid macaws is common and unfortunately distracting, so thanks for addressing that issue again, Petter. Jess, I fully agree that we had no right to take parrots captive and, like you, I want mine to live happy lives. I have many bonded pairs, but no chicks since the last nestbox was removed in '99. I limit the hours of light my most prolific ones receive daily, and boil their occasional eggs. The others are deterred for lack of nestbox. But there's lots of happy love making, mutual preening, sharing toys, and other signs of happiness.

On a purely emotional, esthetic level, I look at the pictures Monica posted in this thread and think what a disappointment it would be if all parrots looked as "blended" as these. In each of the 3 cases, I would so miss the beautiful coloration of the parents. What a loss it would be if our arrogance left us with only the Emerald, Colashua, and Millicynth

I used to frequent a favorite local bird store and watched in sadness as one hybrid grew from baby to 2yo without a buyer. In a case behind glass, such an ugly mix of green shades that no one chose to take him home. Hard to think what might have been the better course for his breeder to take, IF s/he cared to follow this baby's sad first years -- to keep breeding more just like him, or to re-pair his parents. Yes, I'm emotional rather than scientific -- the thought of his bonded parents being separated hurts. But hybrid or not, breeders do that all the time. Another issue entirely, another in which we control parrots' lives to suit our purposes even when it hurts them.

Paca

Petter pretty much said most of what I thought regarding wvmacawlovers post....

It seems to me that many people mistake species and breeds as the same thing... thus comparing dogs to parrots (or humans to parrots)... and that different dogs are like different species and there are no issues with "hybridising" dogs. It probably doesn't help for the matter of fact that we are going around and calling all these mutts "designer dogs" or "hybrid dogs" and selling them for more than purebreds. Sure, mutts may be healthier than their parents as you may be breeding out breed specific health problems, but the point is, all dogs are one species... as humans are all one species. Parrots are various species.

As far as macaw hybrids go... we aren't seeing many hybrids beyond 2nd and 3rd generation. There are a few 4th generation hybrid macaws, and I've read (somewhere) that we can breed up to 5th or 6th generation hybrid macaws... but in truth, we aren't really seeing much beyond 3rd generation.


Another big mistake I see... people thinking it's only "natural" when two birds of different species pair up and reproduce. If these birds were parent raised, there would be less likely a chance that they would pair up with a different species. One of the conservationist projects of the whooping crane is a fine example!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whooping_c ... on_efforts
One project by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service was initiated in 1975 involved cross-fostering with Sandhill Cranes to establish a second self-sustaining flock. Although 85 chicks from the 289 Whooping Crane eggs transplanted into Sandhill Crane nests learned to migrate[1], the Whooping Cranes failed to mate with other Whooping Cranes due to imprinting on their Sandhill foster parents; the project was discontinued in 1989.

Not only that, but if they had an adequate amount of other birds of the same species to choose from, and were raised like they would have in their natural habitat, then they would probably choose a mate of their own... although, there are some mixed species flocks of macaws around the world other than in South America, these flocks probably started out as escaped pets rather than escaped wildcaughts, but then who knows. The fact is, is that these macaws are indeed hybridizing. It could be that being raised in a mixed flock they don't learn to breed within their own species... or that maybe there aren't enough pure species to choose a proper mate from.


One thing that bothers me, if we don't keep breeding pure species, then over time we may have so many hybrids that there wont be any unrelated pure species to breed with, thus making the gene pool smaller. From my understanding, all macaw hybrids, given enough generations, become sterile. Thus, we'll end up with an era with a bunch of sterile hybrids, and all pure species being related and if we inbreed too much, we'll end up with birds who have health problems, such as seen in breed specific dogs.

I've heard some lame reasons why some people have allowed their birds to hybridise... including the birds "love eachother", to "birds mate for life".... when in fact these people never tried to get appropriate mates for their birds so the birds (of separate species) bonded together.


Indeed though, through all of this, many of us will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not against the hybrid birds themselves (as all animals in captivity should be well cared for and loved), and if I had the room and the space, and one needed a home, I would provide that. But, I am against producing them.

This one's for you, Jess: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080319/ap_ ... mmRJoZ.3QA

...so are we protesting (?):
a. the matchup of the swan and the cutout
b. the separation of the swan and the cutout
c. the pairing of the black swan with a common swan

I'm curious about the possibilities, but I doubt that anything will come of it.
Black swans are already genetically fragile as babies that I am surprised that they survive into adulthood at all. Now, I have to go and check out the possibilities...and I have not head any mention of hybrids in all the years that they birds have been in proximity at various places. I'll check back with us...[/i]

alhee wrote:...so are we protesting (?) ...

We're celebrating love. Don't ya know she's gotta be happy?!! : )

Inquiring minds just need to know !

Found one mention of a black swan/goose hybrid in the year 1925.
Bird was probably not healthy and the feathering was poor (as expected), wandered off, was recovered, but died shortly afterwards, a little over a year old. Only one baby hatched from the clutch of eggs laid by the goose.

Hybrids of the various northern (white) swans are fertile.

Found 1 mention of a black swan/white swan hybrid, but no other info about it.

The sad thing about the situation is that it is always easier to find a bachelor male, so the black hen should have been paired with her own species. Now, I must go back and check out the status of black swans.
I would not be surprised that, although they are "common", they could still be endangered.

ok

Black swan population is stable in Australia (natural distribution in the south and southeast). Some migration to New Zealand, but the NZ population is largely from birds that were reintroduced. NZ used to have its own sub species, but that went extinct with the arrival of the Polynesians, which would be close to 1000 years ago.

Feral population in England is probably not self-sustaining, at around 40 pairs or so. Swans appear to mate for life, with a divorce rate of only about 6%. Widowed swans appear not to form new relationships. An unpaired female who wants to lay and nest will form a temporary relationship with a male pair (2 bonded males) just to lay eggs in their nest. This is actually a survival strategy, as 2 males are stronger and can defend a larger territory, to ensure the survival of the young.

Anyway, we must wish continued happiness to that black swan hen for finding finding her true love, and we must empathize with the wooden swan which was dumped.

Pretty fascinating stuff! I'm thinking the wooden swan will float on with hardly a sniff. I'm wishing her and her groom all the best with their B&W hatchlings.

No that is just too funny...

Hybridizing is just humans interfering with nature. (bird Frankensteins???) Really it is just a curiosity to see "what one can get" to try to hybridize.
The babies produced are beautiful but the original species gets diluted and diluted for future generations.... What is the possibility that some day our great-great grandchildren will not ever see a purebred hyacinth macaw (except for old pictures)??? Just an observation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Chat Disclaimer: My comments on this site are of my own opinion. My intent is a friendly chat, to promote the welfare and proper care of parrots, offer helpful bird advice, to alert this site to issues that may result in financial loss, or issues (pro or con) that may arise concerning obtaining, purchasing, or adopting pet birds/parrots. My intent is not to criticize or hurt anyone else's feelings. If anyone thinks my comments pertain to them specifically, I apologize to that person in advance. If you object to my comments, private message me so as not to offend sensitive mem

All I can say is that God made humans and the animals. God is THE top engineer. If he didnt want it to mix he makes it genetically impossible (ie: humans and animals) He also made Man the keeper and caretaker of all the animals. ALL of them, he gave us brains to think, study and create.
Back to, "if he didnt want them to mix, ever, he made it impossible"
Man has learned countless medical issues from Hybridization, all helping to sustain HUMAN life, this being part of our "free will" gift.
Its our job to protect the creatures of the wild AND the creatures we domesticate. IMO birds created in captivity, cared for in captivity and unable to survive in the wild are in fact domesticated.
Man is NEVER a hybrid no matter where you came from.
No dog is a hybrid unless it is crossed cat or a different number of Chromosomes species.
Mules helped build our world today and no one ever whines about that.
Cloning is a whole 'nuther
WORLD.

teacupparrots wrote:All I can say is that God made humans and the animals. God is THE top engineer. If he didnt want it to mix he makes it genetically impossible (ie: humans and animals)

I think you mean "humans and other animals"... What you are describing is the naturalistic fallacy ("if nature allows it, it is good") with a religious twist. Never mind whether life evolved naturally or with some guiding intelligence that wanted things organised this way. Either way, before you decide that nature is universally benevolent, consider that

• Birth defects are entirely natural and often happen spontaneously.
• 75% of all species are parasites, including creatures like the Ichneumonidae (parasitic wasps that lay eggs in living caterpillars so that their larvae can eat the living and therefore fresh host from the inside out) and the worms that cause elephantiasis in humans (you probably don't want to look up pictures of this condition).
• 99% of all species that ever were have been wiped out by extinction.
• Nature gives us things like willow bark, an anelgesic...
• ...But also toxins that cause excruciating pain, like the paralytic neurotoxin, tetrodotoxin, found in pufferfish, that painfully kills consumers of poorly-prepared fugu.
• Nature gives us things like anthrax spores, HIV, ebola, and the bubonic plague. It will help you spread disease far less grudgingly than it will help you cross-breed members of different species.

Nature isn't good. Nature isn't evil. Nature just is; 'good' and 'evil' are values we apply to things. Let us do so advisedly.

He also made Man the keeper and caretaker of all the animals. ALL of them, he gave us brains to think, study and create.

Surely you don't imagine that the highest purpose of that brain is to blindly accept whatever nature offers up? You have intellectual faculties and moral instincts; use them! Decide what is good and right based on the consequences, not on whether it is possible. Pain and suffering are possible -- nature is full of them. This does not mean that we should encourage their presence or spread.

I'm sure you will agree that although anthrax is entirely natural, and dying from anthrax is a very natural thing for humans to do, it's still morally good to try to prevent it and morally reprehensible in the extreme to promote it!

I am not saying, of course, that producing interspecific hybrids by crossbreeding birds is as bad -- by a very long shot indeed -- as infecting people with anthrax spores or the ebola virus. (Maybe it's not bad at all.) My only point is that nature allows us to do both, and we have to use a more intelligent metric than "nature allows it" to decide whether something is good, or evil, or morally neutral. To me, a good starting metric is to decide whether it is likely to cause suffering, or to prevent suffering, and in what proportions.

Man has learned countless medical issues from Hybridization, all helping to sustain HUMAN life, this being part of our "free will" gift.

I'm not aware of any medical breakthroughs achieved through hybridisation, but be that as it may -- medical experimentation is often painful or even lethal to the animal subjects. I do not oppose it -- ultimately, I think it is worth sacrificing a few mice or rats to develop cures for human diseases. However, I do not think we should encourage animal suffering merely for human amusement, or aesthetics -- which is why I find things like Persian cats very distasteful.

Cloning is a whole 'nuther WORLD.

Why? We are all clones, in the technical sense of the word (a clone is a set of cells created by cloning of a single cell; sometimes one individual, as in humans, excepting monozygotic twins; sometimes multiple individuals, as in greenfly). But what does cloning have to do with the subject of discussion?