4 ms·
In 2010, after a long anatomical study, they performed DNA barcoding on a slice of the snack and found it to match that of agave’s by 89 percent [narrowed] down
by mekoka 5y ago
In 2010, after a long anatomical study, they performed DNA barcoding on a slice of the snack and found it to match that of agave’s by 89 percent [narrowed] down to Agave Sisalana. [...] Next, they chopped off its leaves and there it was: the fat, white, watery trunk familiar to millions of Indians from food carts. They ate a slice from it, and it was tasteless and crunchy just like Ram Kand. The findings were published inCurrent Science the following year.
When I look at the Jicama plant it doesn't even remotely look like an Agave. It certainly doesn't seem to me that DNA barcoding would yield an 89% match with Agave Sisalana.
- darkerside 5y agoThe source code for two applications might match 89% and yield completely different results
- mekoka 5y agoI'm not sure that I get the point of your analogy. To be clear, I'm saying that genetic match supersedes any list of superficial attributes to determine identity. If it's established that X and Y are an 89% DNA match, even though X tastes and looks like Z, the fact that Y and Z belong in distant genetic branches should be enough to dismiss X as a possible Z.
- darkerside 5y agoMy point is that being an 89% match doesn't necessarily mean very much.
- fieldcny 5y agoHumans and chimps share 98% of their DNA, We also share like 84% with pigs. 89% doesn’t really seem like a case closed kind of stat.
- mekoka 5y agoYou should look up DNA barcoding. We don't have an 84% barcode match with pigs.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]