if u know alot about sun conures can u plz answer my question

[cockatielfan17]

ok so if a normal sun conure has babies with a red factor sun conure what will the babies be normal or red factor?

 

[IcyWolf]

Do you know how to use a punnett square? You seem to be interested in breeding with color in mind, learning a bit about basic genetics is something you may want to spend some time on, it's really not that complicated once you understand the basics of it Here's a pretty cool site I found just from a quick google search
Beginner Guide to Genes, Mutations and Hybrids

 

[MikeyTN]

It would be 50/50 split. Or one way or another, just one same coloring for all the chicks. Recently someone posted in here with their Sun Conure babies, one is red factor while one is regular, they had 50/50 result.

 

[cockatielfan17]

where the parents both red factor or one was normal?

 

[Amber]

Without getting to far into it, a a double is presumably when the gene/allele is on both sides of the chromosome (Ie, two copies of the gene). Doubles are hypothetical because of lethality involved, but I will include them here anyway as their is evidence that they may exist and not just be another expression of a single gene. A 'normal red' (Some breeders call them dilute reds, but we will use the term single factors here as it is more correct and more widely used.) has only one copy of the red gene (the other copy is normal), and a normal sun, no red factor genes (two normal copies).

This is a pair of single factors (aka dilute reds or normal reds) which means they have ONE red factor gene, and one normal gene each. Therefore, assuming a simple punnet square, they could theoretically throw (produce in their offspring) NORMAL suns, SINGLE factors, like themselves with one copy of the red gene and one normal gene, and DOUBLE reds (believed to be lethal and connected with metabolic disease), with two copies (25% chance, or one in four, of this happening). Double reds are supposed to be nearly identical, but show more red colouration down the back then singles do.



HYPOTHETICALLY- If the bird is a DOUBLE. Because double reds have two copies of the gene they are desired for breeding, as when mated with a normal sun (100% normal colouration) they will produce 100% SINGLE red factors. When bred to a single red factor they will produce 50% DOUBLE and 50% single. When bred to another DOUBLE they produce 100% double. This is all assuming a standard punnet square method of heredity, but it seems to prove true.

Hypothetical crossings if double itself is not lethal but an extremely close gene locus that always almost inevitability is paired with it is the cause.
Double x Double

x D D
D DD DD
D DD DD

Double x Single

x D D
D DD DD
d Dd Dd

Double x Normal sun

x D D
d Dd Dd
d Dd Dd

Where D is the dominant RED FACTOR allele and d the normal, recessive allele


If he is a SINGLE factor, when bred to a NORMAL (100% normal) sun, the offspring would be 75% NORMAL and 25% SINGLE factor. When bred to another SINGLE, the offspring would be... a 25% chance of a DOUBLE (Potentially lethal) being born 25% of a NORMAL and 50% of a SINGLE factor. When bred to a hypothetical DOUBLE, the offspring would be 50% SINGLE and 50% DOUBLE. Once again, assuming a punnet relation, but it is seen in breedings to be true.

Single x normal sun

x D d
d Dd dd
d dd dd

Single x Single

x D d
D DD Dd
d Dd dd

Single x Double (Hypothetical)

x D d
D DD Dd
D DD Dd


This is all just off the top of my head, so I would run the punnet squares to confirm it beforehand. I use them often in aquaria (Especially in fighting fish matings! Very useful) so I would recommend learning them. I'm curious though, why are you asking, do you intend to breed them?

Edit, fixed an error an threw in the punnets. I assume red factor is dominant.

Edit again- For those that may be confused. D is a single copy of the dominate red allele. d is its normal counterpart. The birds have two genes that control this mutation at a certain location of their chromosomes (one on each side of the pair), and they can be any mix of the two. Therefore DD (D on one side D on the other) is a double factor, Dd (D on one side, d on the other) a single, and dd (d on both sides) a normally coloured sun conure. D is assumed to be dominant based on the documented offspring of various red factor crosses. No sex linkage is assumed (Ie, that red genes are passed on by a certain gender to the offspring)

 

[cockatielfan17]

thanks i want t get some sun cnures but i dont knw if i should get red factor or normal

 

[Amber]

It would be 50/50 split. Or one way or another, just one same coloring for all the chicks. Recently someone posted in here with their Sun Conure babies, one is red factor while one is regular, they had 50/50 result.

If one parent was a double red and one single (as happened in that breeding), yes. But if the red parent was a single, it would be a 75% to 25% split.

Also worth noting that it's still chance. You may have a 50% chance (in that breeding anyway), but that doesn't guarantee you will get a 50/50 split of the colours in the clutch. You may get an entire clutch of normals or reds! Like flipping a coin, it may be 50/50 that you will get heads, but you might get tails 5 times in a row before you do!

 

[cockatielfan17]

thanks!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Amber]

thanks i want t get some sun cnures but i dont knw if i should get red factor or normal

From a strictly business point of view, if looking at breeding in the future (not something I recommend unless you are very serious about it, mind you, there are plenty of unwanted birds that we could adopt instead of breeding more after all! ) the red factors are a better 'investment' (not that I like terming any living creature that) as their offspring will potentially be of that colour, and more in demand, and hence you can sell at a higher price. It's the same basics of aquaria and really, breeding anything. HM fighing fish are worth more then their VT cousins due to demand, hence I would prefer to (and do) breed them. Red factors are still rather rare, so they fetch a higher price. As more people breed them, they will come down in price. A papered and purebred dog fetches more then his backyard bred brethren. And so on and so forth. So yes, if planning to breed (ethics aside) the factors may cost more originally, but a single clutch with some red factor chicks would return more then a clutch of normal chicks. but the red factor parent(s) will cost more initially to buy, so it will even out anyway. That said, I do not agree with breeding birds solely for profit, and it's something you really need to look at WHY you wish to do it. Our parrots are companions after all, not money making machines!

But before even looking at colour or breeding, I would make sure they are the bird for you. I have a jenday (a natural sun conure variation/subspecies) and although I love him to bits, but he is loud, stubborn and probably not the ideal bird for most people! On the other hand, he is a cuddle bug, but so are many other species, without the volume! I wish you luck in getting your birds, but a sun is a huge commitment, you have to ensure your living arrangements are suitable (If you live in an apartment of flats, probably not the best species to choose, your neighbours may complain about the noise) like any bird, but especially with these guys. They are not so much loud as they are ear piercing. You hear of people re-homing them due to noise complaints.

 

[Amber]

thanks!!!!!!!!!!!

No problems. Be sure to also research tangerines (orange suns, kind of halfway between a red and a normal, it's believed to be a different allele that controls it though, so they are not red factors as per se) and the other mutations out there so you know the differences. It's easy to confuse a tangerine with a red factor sometimes! Their are also a bunch of other neat mutations and variations, like pieds out there. It's all really fascinating stuff!

A side note I should have mentioned in my original post to all with red factors or looking at breeding them, It's not recommended unless the parents are very healthy genetic individuals with lots of outcrossing in their background (breeding back to normals) to breed two Singles together, and it's usually recommended (see, necessary) to breed suspected doubles back to normal birds. This is because of the amount of inbreeding that happened to propagate the gene originally, and as a result some red factors can carry detrimental genes. If two carry these 'bad' genes and are bred together, they can have chicks with unusually high morality rates (1 in four dead) and not as healthy offspring. So, if you are unsure of your birds genetic background, always remember to play it safe and pick appropriate mates to ensure the chicks have the best possible life! Before even looking at breeding red factors I would recommend talking to Tina on birdboard, she may also have an account here too, but I cant remember it, as she knows all the risks better then I do (she is a red factor fanatic). Metabolic disease is a huge one in red factors, especially double reds. A double x double crossing, if the parents carry the gene for meta disease (common in reds), has a 1 in 4 chance of chick fatality (the double red chick). Hence why breeding back a double to a normal (and a normal with recent wild ancestors is preferred) is a necessity unless you know the parents background (and I mean, GENERATIONS back to ensure there is no sign of genetic disease in it's family) The hypothesis it that the lethal gene is recessive, but comes usually paired with the dominate red factor (believed to be on an extremely close locus such that it almost always segregates with it) that gives the birds their red colour, and a double dose results in lethality. This is why trying to produce doubles is not recommended. And that all suspected doubles are bred back to normals. The other hypothesis is that double red factor genes themselves are lethal, not a nearby recessive gene that tends to come with them, and that all supposed doubles are actually just expressing their single red factor gene to a greater extent (accumulative dominate gene). Either way, it is playing with fire.