fangsalot
Third Instar
this might be old news to some of you,but for those who missed it http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010...es_new_spec.php
new species of roach discovered in new york
- Thread starter fangsalot
- Start date
God of Roaches
First Instar
Woah, those look really cool 
, but it annoys me how the writer generalizes all roach species as pests. <_<
, but it annoys me how the writer generalizes all roach species as pests. <_< Awesome! Any New Yorkers (on the forum) that can harvest some?Woah, those look really cool
GOR (god of roaches---- you like it?), well, what can you expect?
vfox
Blatta
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.
Ozymandias
Seventh Instar
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ralph
Panchlora
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!
Edit: the primates are ~99% similar, thanks Vfox!
Last edited by a moderator:
vfox
Blatta
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?