fangsalot Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 this might be old news to some of you,but for those who missed it http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010...es_new_spec.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God of Roaches Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Woah, those look really cool , but it annoys me how the writer generalizes all roach species as pests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisserman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vfox Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisserman Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 lol vfox.... Ozymandias: yeah it would be quite hard to find them... they even had a hard time making sure it was a species.....it must be rarer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vfox Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I'll take them. As odd as it is, I really like pest species lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vfox Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hisserman Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.