yucheol_shin's Identifications

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.

I am recording the above instance as G. tsushimaensis. The reason is that the COI gene in mitochondrial DNA resembles G. tsushimaensis more than G. ussuriensis.

Personally, I think that G. tsushimaensis and G.ussuriensis are one species, but according to the results of research and publication so far, it is first recorded as G. tsushimaensis.

I only know for sure that the COI gene in the above individual has a similar gene to G. tsushimaensis, not G. ussuriensis.

We know only a small part of the whole genome, so we can't be absolutely certain. As @yucheol_shin said, the possibility of G. ussuriensis cannot be ruled out.

However, the exact thing is that the COI gene resembles G. tsushimaensi. I think G. tsushimaensi and G. ussuriensis are the same species, but I'll try to record them based on what has been published so far.