First published in the variegated post 1995
In the last edition of the “Variegated Post” our editor asked for members to write some articles for future editions, particularly on what I think could be called our “Cinderella” varieties - the Clearflights and the Dark-Eyed Clears. He worded his request very nicely, but it was, nevertheless, really a plea to members to do something to remedy the situation. He wrote “...as like many others, I do not know enough about these varieties, and if we as a society do not act now we will be outdone by other societies...”
He is quite right. There is a deplorable lack of knowledge about the two “Cinderella” varieties. Our society lists four varieties of Pied Budgerigars as being within its criteria - but as far as many members are concerned that is reduced to just two, the Dominant Pieds and the Recessive Pieds. Oh yes, we see the words “or Clearflight” tacked on to the Dominant Pied line in the show schedule, and “or Dark-Eyed Clear” after the Recessive Pied, but it means very little too many members. The two varieties are very seldom mentioned in the “VP”, in other VBC literature, or in the minutes of the A.G.M.
Looking through the last “VP” (August ‘94) there is not mention of them except for the editor’s own plea for informative articles, and a passing reference to Dark-Eyed Clears in the article on Recessive Pieds. Is it surprising that they have become quite rare?
Am I correct in saying that if a clear bird is seen in a Recessive Pied class most VBC members will look at its eyes and if there is no iris ring, know enough to accept that it is a Dark-Eyed Clear? I sincerely hope so, although I doubt that the majority of non-VBC exhibitors would have that knowledge. However, I wonder how many VBC members will recognise a Clearflight for what it is, even when it is in its correct class with the Australian Dominant Pied. Quite a low percentage I believe.
Some judges also have difficulty in recognising a Clearflight. It is a fact that is even more difficult to achieve the Clearflight standard of perfection than it is to achieve the Dominant Pied one, so a slightly miss-marked Clearflight will usually be thought to be a bad Dominant Pied and tucked well down the line even if it is fairly well up in substance and “type”. Having chatted to various judges, I have been amazed and greatly disheartened to realise the low standard of appreciation of what it is, or what it is not, a member of the Clearflight variety. I am afraid that some VBC members who are judges actually on the Judges’ Panel are not always clear in their own mind, on this subject. A rather disheartened state of affairs.
What then is a Clearflight - the first variegated variety to be seen in Britain? It was known until quite recent years as the Continental Clearflight, but in line with most other varieties, the name of the originating country or area has been dropped.
The current BS Standard is quite precise and allows no variation. The bird must look like a normal, except that it must have all 14 clear flights and a clear tail (yellow for the green bird and white for the blue). No foul feathers at all are allowed. It must also have a clear patch on the back of the head. In previous editions of the Standard the size of this patch was required to be approximately half an inch by five eighths of an inch, but the current Standard does not state a desired size. The current Standard differs from the previous one in another way. Whereas previously a slight collar or extension of the bib into the breast feathering, was allowed and not penalised although considered undesirable, the current Standard does not allow fore this characteristic of the variety at all. That is why I say that it is far more difficult to achieve the current standard for the variety, than it is to achieve the published Standard for the Dominant Pied, which is exhibited in the same class. From my own experience with the variety over many years I would say that it is actually impossible to achieve the current Standard in every respect. I hope other breeders have had more luck than I have had in eliminating the extension of the bib.
Is it not ironic that a variety that has struggled for a very long time to hold its own against Dominant Pieds in the same classes and for the same CC’s, should be further handicapped by a more stringent Standard, while the Dominant Pied which started out as the Banded Pied and was allowed to deteriorate in body markings to what it is today, is now allowed to have irregular patches of yellow or white up to a maximum of 50% in area; to have an optional head patch; and odd dark flight feathers; without being penalised for any of those variations.
Where is the justice in such a blatantly different treatment for two different pied varieties - varieties which are forced by the BS to be exhibited together in the same classes at most shows? Did the members of the BS Colour Standards Committee ever consider, or realise, their appalling bias in favour of the Dominant Pied? Was the VBC not consulted on the Clearflight Standard, recently or in the past? Has the VBC voiced a protest about its unfairness and likely effects on the continued existence of the variety? Did any members of the VBC who happens to be on the Colour Standards Committee not realise the injustice? Did they fight to get fair play for the Clearflight? Were they over-ruled by others less informed on the true characteristics of this increasingly rare variety? I think that we other VBC members are entitled to a few answers. Otherwise it must be assumed that the VBC committee acquiesces in the possible demise of the Clearflight as an exhibition variety.
I may be doing some members of the committee an injustice. Perhaps they have made an effort to give the Clearflight a fair chance, both in our committee’s deliberations and on the BS Colour Standards Committee. If so, why hasn’t the membership been told of what is going on? I have not seen a written word on the subject.
Back to the variety itself. Some birds inheriting the Clearflight gene, whether in single or in double factor, look very unlike the desired Standard. Some only have the head patch to distinguish them from a Normal; some will have just one or two clear or partly clear flight feathers; or possibly one clear tail feather. Some will have very broken breast and body feathering in addition to varying numbers of clear or foul flight feathers. Some look very similar in appearance to that of the long-departed Dutch Pied and are often mistaken for, or claimed to be, that variety. Whether the birds called Dutch Pieds in Australia are true examples of the variety or just mismarked Clearflights, I do not know. Some of our members living there, or having been there, may know the answer.
Anyway, whether they have just a head patch of are incompletely marked Clearflights in one of the other ways that I have described, any individual bird can in turn breed offspring showing all or nearly al of the desired characteristics. According to the late Cyril Rogers there is one infallible way to prove whether a bird is actually a Clearflight or not. That is whether it has the ability to produce Dark-Eyed Clears when paired correctly.
A Dark-Eyed Clear, the other “Cinderella” pied variety, is actually a Clearflight Recessive Pied. The bird must be double factor for Recessive Pied and also inherit one or two of the dominant Clearflight genes - the combined effect being a clear bird, either white or yellow, devoid of all markings or suffusion. The Dutch Pied does not, or did not, have the same ability to create the Dark-Eyed Clear.
So the pairing to produce some Dark-Eyed Clears must include a bird, either cock or hen, which is a Clearflight split for Recessive Pied (or an actual Dark-Eyed Clear) paired to a visual (double factor) Recessive Pied - of the opposite sex, of course. Not all the young will be Dark-Eyed Clears. Anyone interested can look up, or work out, the table of expectations.
It can be seen that the fate of the Dark-Eyed Clear is definitely tied to the fate of the Clearflight variety. Through lack of knowledge of just plain indifference to their fate by the Fancy in general, both varieties are now quite rare. Not many are seen on the show bench - not even at the Specialist and Rare Variety Show at Ryton near Coventry each year. In my opinion the VBC must bear a lot of the responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs. The committee, with certain notable exceptions, has over the years done very little to remedy the situation, until now the VBC is faced with the fact that another specialist society has decided that the Dark-Eyed Clear has also become so rare as to necessitate it being taken under their wing, to join the Clearflight, in an attempt to remedy the situation.
To my way of thinking the VBC should not fight this. It should be thankful that others are concerned for the well-being of the two “Cinderella” varieties. To do otherwise smacks of a “dog in the manger” attitude. If and when one or both varieties have recovered in numerical strength enough to leave them to the VBC to husband in the future, I know that many RV&CBS members will only be too happy to relinquish any direct interest. They will be watching out for any other variety needing a helping hand, whether it is already on another specialist society’s list or not. The Fancy has lost too many mutant varieties already, notably the Recessive English Grey. It looks like a Light (Buttercup) Yellow in this country may be going the same way. Luckily the Slate is back with us once more. I think that we all have a certain duty to do all that we can to save all endangered varieties.