Jump to content

new species of roach discovered in new york


fangsalot

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...

Woah, those look really cool :), but it annoys me how the writer generalizes all roach species as pests. <_<

Awesome! Any New Yorkers (on the forum) that can harvest some?

GOR (god of roaches---- you like it?), well, what can you expect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been any news on if this was a new species or sub species or if this was just poor DNA identification management? I'm curious because if it is truly a new species I'd like to know more about them and even obtain some. But then again, I have pokemon syndrome with roaches, gatta catch 'm all! Lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be interesting if thay collected more than one of them to verify that it was an actual new species.

Hisserman: i could collect some from new york but not sure if i would get the right ones, and really don't want to deal with a species that can be a pest species especially living at my parents house.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I be suspicious. And it's not just because the cockroach is headless! Besides the notes at the end of the article that talk about some strange parts, I noticed that they say that this roach is 4% different in its DNA. Considering organisms as different as humans and chimps have 98-99% (I've seen different numbers), this obvious Periplaneta is supposed to be that different from the American roach? The tone of the article also makes me think it might be a "joke".

Edit: the primates are ~99% similar, thanks Vfox!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I be suspicious. And it's not just because the cockroach is headless! Besides the notes at the end of the article that talk about some strange parts, I noticed that they say that this roach is 4% different in its DNA. Considering organisms as different as humans and chimps have 98-99% (I've seen different numbers), this obvious Periplaneta is supposed to be that different from the American roach? The tone of the article also makes me think it might be a "joke".

I don't think this was meant as a joke but I do think it needs validation, serious validation. That dried out husk wouldn't have much in the way of viable DNA anyway would it? I'm not saying their results are wrong or faked but I think it needs validated by an entomologist and a DNA specialist. As for the differences between chimps and humans you mean only 1-2% right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this was meant as a joke but I do think it needs validation, serious validation. That dried out husk wouldn't have much in the way of viable DNA anyway would it? I'm not saying their results are wrong or faked but I think it needs validated by an entomologist and a DNA specialist. As for the differences between chimps and humans you mean only 1-2% right?

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...