Has anyone considered the fact that chameleons use their ability to change their color(intensity) to regulate their body temperature?
Some of that ability is lost in animals that are partially translucent, so how much more proof would one need in order to see that this is a bad genetic trait?
A translucent calyptratus in the wild would be a lot less likely to reach adulthood (due to numerous reasons) than a normal calyptratus, so this phenotype has to be rare if not absent from the wild (assuming the wild population(s) is/are large enough etc.). Therefore I believe the captive translucent animals result from inbreeding. People that are seriously interested in keeping and breeding chameleons and want to ensure that the captive population remains healthy (in the long term) and as genetically diverse as possible, DO NOT have an interest in breeding translucent animals.
The thing that strikes me most though, is that in this case the (almost) unique ability to change color (to a chameleon's extent that is) is partially bred out of the animal's genes, and people are even willing to pay a higher amount of money for it than for a genetically healthier animal.
By the way, I've met Kees Bout (that Dutch breeder) when I was 15 years old. I bought a calyptratus from him (my second chameleon, not translucent), but forgot to ask for the papers. I emailed him several times afterwards to get the papers via mail, but he never replied to me. Nice guy...
)
