 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by BGF on October 30, 2002 at 03:38:33:
In Reply to: New taxonomy papers (2002) - Australian species posted by rayhoser on October 30, 2002 at 01:38:59:
I am quite curious as to the repeated statements in your 'papers' regarding the species to be easily seperateable by venom and DNA.
First off, my antivenom paper did nothing to support your 'taxonomy'. The followup venom LC/MS paper showed that things were far from clear. You obviously didn't bother to read this (I'm shocked of course).
As for the DNA, you have not produced any evidence at all regarding this. This is sloppy at best and fraudelent most likely. There are no refs cited, none that are in public domain (and I'll be f*cked if I'll show your our results before press) and I somehow doubt you're doing PCR in your spare time. Thus, I can only conclude that you have made up the DNA 'evidence' entirely.
BGF
