Translucents (other than veiled)

[Slug]

I was wondering if there are any other species of cham that come out translucent. I have seen Veileds before, but have never seen any others. Is this just a characteristic of some Veileds?

Are there translucent Panthers? Jacksons? Pygmy? Etc.?

If so, and if anyone has one, please post pictures! I would love to see them.

 

[leedragon]

god I really hope there is not anyother species.

there is so many forms and colors and sizes of chamelons why in heaven will people bring up morphes to this species

 

[DekuScrub]

eww i still dont understand the interest.

thats not the sort of trait anyone should be interested in propagating.

i understand its a novelty or whatever but even so.

 

[leedragon]

poor animals dude, and there is even no need for that with chameleons, if you one a blue one, there is blue ones, if you want red ones, there is red ones, if you want one with horns, there is one with horns, if you want one the side of a tumb there is one like that, no need to no need toscrew up the animals like that :O

 

[Slug]

I should probably clarify that I do not want one. I understand that it is a mutation or deformity, I am just wondering what they would look like. I honestly think the translucent veileds are really freaky looking and kind of look unnatural. I by no means want people to start breeding them like that, I just wonder if they already exist, and if so, I want to see what they look like.

 

[stephencartolano]

"I by no means want people to start breeding them like that, I just wonder if they already exist, and if so, I want to see what they look like"


Me too, If anyone has seen a pie-bald panther I'd be interested in seeing

 

[Trace]

For the record the translucent gene is a naturally occurring one and the first Veileds’ with the phase came from the wild. These are not some man-made mutant chameleons originating from inbreeding or anything like that. If you don’t like the look that’s fine but don’t assume it’s because of nefarious reasons.

Here is a thread about translucent Fischer’s Chameleons: https://www.chameleonforums.com/transluscent-fischers-chameleons-1532/

I’m unaware of any other species being bred with the gene but I’m probably slightly out of touch with what is happening in the hobby concerning that.

I’m usually a purist when it comes to chameleons and locality but I think the translucents are super cool.

 

[Casperr]

I agree with Trace. I always thought they looked cool, too.
But I don't know anything about it, and you guys make it sound like they're always sick and dying or something; is that the case?

 

[TiffanyMariexo]

Wow all Chams are beautiful. They are monsters !!! Like the post above says its s "gene". I for a fact think they are a stunning creature

 

[leedragon]

of course it is natural like the albino gen, but its one thing to have speciment coming from the wild like that and breed these in captivity, chamelons are animals that need uv, this deffect in the skin could cause problem for them.

those who are like that in nature will be taken care of by natural selection, if the case that translucent would be good for the animals we would be seen alot of translucent coming as wc instead of the normal ones as the majority.

people can excuse breeding these deffect one way or an other, but the end point is that this isn´t good for the animal itself.

an once again there is no need to selective breed morphes or other stuff in chamelons, the variety of form size and colors are endless

 

[Jupiter]

of course it is natural like the albino gen, but its one thing to have speciment coming from the wild like that and breed these in captivity, chamelons are animals that need uv, this deffect in the skin could cause problem for them.

those who are like that in nature will be taken care of by natural selection, if the case that translucent would be good for the animals we would be seen alot of translucent coming as wc instead of the normal ones as the majority.

people can excuse breeding these deffect one way or an other, but the end point is that this isn´t good for the animal itself.

an once again there is no need to selective breed morphes or other stuff in chamelons, the variety of form size and colors are endless

It's not actually a point until it's backed up with something. So far you have speculated that it might be bad for their skin, and made it very clear you don't like translucents either way, but thats not quite the same thing as making a point. If we found out that it was bad for their skin I wouldn't be that surprised, but then I also wouldn't be surprised if we found out how to adjust husbandry to deal with it. As far as saying there is no need to breed morphs goes, there is actually no NEED to breed or keep them at all, so I'm not really sure where you get off drawing that line.

Translucents are weirrrrd, but interesting; I'm also interested to see in there are others. Definitely would't get one though.

 

[leedragon]

as I said, there is many way so justify this or just watch the other way but in the end comes to the vanity of the people who doesn´t give one about the animal, you are consciously breeding a deffect in the animal.

and yes it is also it is selfish to keep chameleons in captivity too, that´s way I haven´t keep one in years, I am more for travel and see them in nature, and conserve the natural enviroment they live in, and I would love to get permission to release the young in their natural enviroment if I start with chameleons sometime again

 

[camimom]

At this point in time, there is no evidence that this translucent gene harms the animal in any way shape or form.

There is also no evidence that UVB harms them due to the lack of pigmentation.

At this time, its not considered a defect, merely a morph.

There are several members on here who keep the trans veiled, and no one has reported any issues with them due to the pigmentation.

While I understand you do not like the veileds with the trans gene, you cannot bad talk it without any evidence.

ANd for the record- you stated that people shouldn't breed for morphs or selective traits.. so is it bad for someone to breed ambilobes of certain blood lines to get an oranger body? Or how about that's what almost all decent mammal breeders do. they breed for color, for stamina, for skill, for personality...

 

[TiffanyMariexo]

At this point in time, there is no evidence that this translucent gene harms the animal in any way shape or form.

There is also no evidence that UVB harms them due to the lack of pigmentation.

At this time, its not considered a defect, merely a morph.

There are several members on here who keep the trans veiled, and no one has reported any issues with them due to the pigmentation.

While I understand you do not like the veileds with the trans gene, you cannot bad talk it without any evidence.

ANd for the record- you stated that people shouldn't breed for morphs or selective traits.. so is it bad for someone to breed ambilobes of certain blood lines to get an oranger body? Or how about that's what almost all decent mammal breeders do. they breed for color, for stamina, for skill, for personality...

Thank you !! I'm actually a little offended at how bad these poor guys have been put down in this thread.

 

[Chameleons09]

I have 2 translucent veileds and have experienced no issues with them this far.

 

[bradley]

Some I like and others I don't, it depends on the patterning on them and where the white is on the body.

I know a lot are bred with siblings to get more white on the body. Aslong as this isnt done and they are crossed out to normals and make hets every once in a while I do not have a problem with it.

They have always been hard to sell over here in the Uk though even at lower prices and that was when the first appeared in shops etc. I remember someone I know taking some to a show along with panthers and normal veileds. Sold most of the others but only one or two of the translucents. We call them pieds over here in the UK

 

[Jupiter]

At this point in time, there is no evidence that this translucent gene harms the animal in any way shape or form.

There is also no evidence that UVB harms them due to the lack of pigmentation.

At this time, its not considered a defect, merely a morph.

There are several members on here who keep the trans veiled, and no one has reported any issues with them due to the pigmentation.

While I understand you do not like the veileds with the trans gene, you cannot bad talk it without any evidence.

ANd for the record- you stated that people shouldn't breed for morphs or selective traits.. so is it bad for someone to breed ambilobes of certain blood lines to get an oranger body? Or how about that's what almost all decent mammal breeders do. they breed for color, for stamina, for skill, for personality...

THANK you, I was going to get into all this as well, and even into plants and agriculture and how we basically wouldn't have made it as a species without SB, but I didn't wan't things to mutate into a full on rant. I'm glad someone brought it up though.

as I said, there is many way so justify this or just watch the other way but in the end comes to the vanity of the people who doesn´t give one about the animal, you are consciously breeding a deffect in the animal.

and yes it is also it is selfish to keep chameleons in captivity too, that´s way I haven´t keep one in years, I am more for travel and see them in nature, and conserve the natural enviroment they live in, and I would love to get permission to release the young in their natural enviroment if I start with chameleons sometime again

......riiiiiight, because everyone knows how well CB animals fare in the wild...Nothing says you care about an animal like taking it out of the safe environment its spent it's entire existence in and thrusting it into the unfair, careless arms of mother nature. Capturing animals from the wild is not cool. Releasing domestic animals into it is murder. In my experience people who "give one" typically don't murder their pets. They tend to care for them regardless of what they look like, actually.

EDIT: Congrats on your 1k post bradley!

 

[leedragon]

yes "Oo" that's why america doesn't have problems with invader species right? yes is bad for the individual but it is by far the best for the species, and btw this are reptiles, who aren´t domesticated

 

[leedragon]

At this point in time, there is no evidence that this translucent gene harms the animal in any way shape or form.

There is also no evidence that UVB harms them due to the lack of pigmentation.

At this time, its not considered a defect, merely a morph.

There are several members on here who keep the trans veiled, and no one has reported any issues with them due to the pigmentation.

While I understand you do not like the veileds with the trans gene, you cannot bad talk it without any evidence.

ANd for the record- you stated that people shouldn't breed for morphs or selective traits.. so is it bad for someone to breed ambilobes of certain blood lines to get an oranger body? Or how about that's what almost all decent mammal breeders do. they breed for color, for stamina, for skill, for personality...

no, no with chameleons anyway, no for a color or for a size or physical trade, is like someone is gonna breed blue yemen, get a panther instead, there is already blue ones

 

[Jupiter]

do·mes·ti·cate [duh-mes-ti-keyt] Show IPA verb, do·mes·ti·cat·ed, do·mes·ti·cat·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to convert (animals, plants, etc.) to domestic uses; tame.
2.
to tame (an animal), especially by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.
3.
to adapt (a plant) so as to be cultivated by and beneficial to human beings.
4.
to accustom to household life or affairs.
5.
to take (something foreign, unfamiliar, etc.) for one's own use or purposes; adopt.

They aren't domesticated to the extent that dogs and cows are, I'll give you that, but they are domesticated.

Main Entry: selective breeding
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the intentional mating of two animals in an attempt to produce offspring with desirable characteristics or for the elimination of a trait

I think you are confusing selective breeding with genetic experimentation/screaming "its alive" as lightning strikes all around. If you have a mostly blue Ambilobe, and you like that about him and want to breed him, do you just get a random female and stick her in there with him? Of course not, you select a dam with a mostly blue sire. Not that insidious really.

no, no with chameleons anyway, no for a color or for a size or physical trade, is like someone is gonna breed blue yemen, get a panther instead, there is already blue ones

Check this out.

https://www.chameleonforums.com/madagascar-nosy-chameleons-97925/

Over fourty chams, all wild, all from nosy be. Do you see any true blues? Or even anything that looks remotely like our idea of a nosy be?

I'm not even sure what you are talking about as far as invasive species goes. You're saying thats ok then, if they don't die on an individual level but instead thrive and explode as a population and throw the whole ecosystem out of whack? Taking animals from where they are from and putting them where they are not is no bueno 99% of the time, unless you are deliberately trying to introduce a new species to fill an ecological niche that is empty for some reason (presumably because humans emptied it). Every other time, if a creature was meant to live somewhere, it would live there. Evolution is elegant like that.