Transluscent Fischer's Chameleons

[PEPPERQUILL1]

fischers

Hi,
Chris I dont have to give you a proper explination on aything.I simply said it did not look like translucency you can see thru the veilds skin as for the fischers, no.It might be pied or something but I dont see any transluceny on that animal.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Holland,

If you want people to take you seriously about anything, you probably should learn to accept that few are going to take your opinion at face value when you refuse to provide any form of proper explaination. That, of course, is up to you, doesn't hurt anyone but yourself.

The translucent areas in the translucent veileds are not present over the entire effected area of skin. The point I was trying to make was that since we've already established that the amount of effected space can vary considerably, smaller portions of effected skin would show relatively lower amounts of each squamation type (white, translucent and with black pigment). As you can see from my pic, there are small areas of all three on the fischeri, just in smaller concentrations as would be expected from an area that size.

I'm not trying to make money off this animal or market any potential offspring as carriers, I just find it interesting to be present on this animal and further find it curious that you are so obviously bent out of shape about it too yet fail to provide oportunity for any logical discussion on it.

Chris

 

[studiocham]

It might be pied or something but I dont see any transluceny on that animal.

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but... what is the distinction you make between pied and translucent?

In other critters, "pied" means markings distinguished by an absence of pigment showing white-to-pink-to-clear.

The translucency varies with the thickness or type of the material within the pied marking. In other words, a white foot can have a clear toenail with a transparent pink/red quick, etc. The toenail isn't white, and if furred, the skin beneath the white hairs isn't white, even though they are within the limits of a "white" marking.

Please explain, I feel like I'm missing something important in terminology or identification, and animal color genetics is one of my fave subjects!

 

[Jordan]

I think the only difference you can see between the to would be due to the bones behind it. The veileds seems to be transluecent around the nasal passage and the lip where there is less or no bone behind it. The rest where there is bone behind it seems to be gray or black. If you look at the veileds leg where there is little bone behind it, it shows that transluecent affect again. When you look at the veileds elbow you see that it has went back to a gray tone. I suspect as the veiled gets older and the fingers get more developed bones there that they may to become a more grayish color then transluecent. What ever is affecting the to of them is far more severe in the veiled the Fischeri.