Cinnamonwing Ino Myth

As is my way I’ve had several FB debates over last two years when people refer to Lacewings being Cinnamon Inos. They usually argue by posting a link to some book or articles or webpage but these are also wrong and the reason the myth is perpetuated. A Lacewing is a separate gene mutation to Ino but is an allele to both Ino and Cinnamon. Most recently I penned a long response in reply to a Russian breeder who posted an article about Para-Inos in order to prove me wrong and claim Lacewing isn’t a unique mutation. The article can be read here

I am repeating my reply here because I am sick and tired of having to make the same argument over and over again every few months so here is a rather long dissertation as to why the Cinnamon Ino theory of Lacewing genetics is a myth.

“The article on Par-Inos was good to read however it is wrong in its assertion that Lacewing Budgerigars are Cinnamon Inos. It refers to work by Dr Daniels and Inte Osman and others such as Ken Yorke have claimed to create lacewings by crossing cinnamons and Inos but the problem that all three proofs have is that they don’t prove that the initial birds they start with are actually lutinos!!!! I would guess that 10% of all lutinos in the gene pool are in fact clear lacewings. What is a clear Lacewing? Well they look like lutinos but could be dilute lacewings, clearwing lacewings, DF spangle lacewings, or just lacewings that don’t show markings. These birds have been hidden in the gene pool for a hundred years and because the main breeding strategy is to breed Lutino to Lutino ( culling out any that show feint markings) these clear lacewings remain undetected. So when these gentlemen did pairings of Lutino to Cinnamon to try and “create” a Lacewing and prove it is a combination bird they never “proved” that they started with birds that were genetically lutinos.

To prove a Lutino is a Lutino you need to breed it two ways. One you mate to dilutes to see if any dilutes or clearwings are bred. If they are there is no proof you have Lutinos as it could be clear Lacewing. If you get dilutes you can’t use those Lutinos to prove that lacewings can be produced by mating Lutinos to cinnamon. If your Lutino is mated to as pure a normal as is available and you get some green split Lutino cocks then mate those green split Lutino cocks to unrelated green hens you should get a Lutino hen that is unlikely to be a clear Lacewing. Sometimes if your original Lutino was a clear Lacewing the resulting red eyed hen bird will show markings because it is actually a Lacewing because the original Lutino was in fact a clear Lacewing.

Now Lacewing is actually a separate mutation allele that is positioned such that it covers both the Ino and the cinnamon loci. It can’t be divided up to give cinnamons and inos but is a single indivisible gene mutation. The Para Ino article said thatlacewings first appeared in the late 1940s in an aviary that contained inos and cinnamons. Well in Australia we weren’t allowed to import budgies so no lacewings were ever imported in past time ( limited imports have been allowed in late 20th Century. Australian lacewings first appeared in aviaries of Hector Hall in Kingaroy in Queensland and he only had normals and did not have cinnamons or Ino and they were immeadeately identified as being different. Tom Smith obtained the first of these Australian lacewings and together with Herb Heath and Clary Osbourne developed them to exhibitionstatus and improved their markings.

Now a cinnamon Lutino is an actual bird. It isn’t much different to any other Lutino and the Ino gene masks the cinnamon effect. You can also get Opaline Lutinos however these are generally easier to pick because the tail often has the flash associated with Opalines in the tail. The tail will be white with a yellow flash and this designates the Lutino is an Opaline. It is easy to prove if Lutinos are cinnamon or Opaline by mating them to normals and examining the young. It’s easier to use a Lutino hen for the test and mate her to a normal green cock that is split for whatever your testing for so assume that’s cinnamon. If you mate the Lutino hen to a green split cinnamon cock and you get both cinnamon cocks and hens then your Lutino hen is also a cinnamon! Now how can this be if a hen has only one X chromosome and is visually Lutino but throws a cinnamon cock? It does this cause it carry’s cinnamon on its X chromosome as well as Lutino on its X chromosome!!! Cinnamon and Ino on the one chromosome so according to Dr Daniels and Inte Osman and Ken Yorke the hen should be a Lacewing if it carries cinnamon and Ino together on the same sex chromosome!!!! Go thru your records and see if you have ever bred a cinnamon cock from a Lutino hen and you don’t need to do this proof mating as you have already done it. Now I hear the naysayers saying oh but the Lutino hen was actually a clear Lacewing! Well once you concede the existence of clear lacewings in the Ino gene pool the whole Lacewing is a cinnamon Ino theory is blown out of the water. “