‘Peacock'-colored creature — sold into pet trade — is new species from Indonesia
Other times, the new species arrives at their doorstep in special transport boxes from halfway across the world.
Researchers in Germany have been working with animal enthusiasts and exotic pet wholesalers for decades to get an insiders look at the river fauna of Indonesia, according to a study published June 6 in the peer-reviewed journal Arthropoda.
They are particularly interested in crayfish and those that come in bright and elaborate colors, perfect for collectors.
When the crayfish are sold worldwide, they are sold under color names like 'Red cheek' or 'Blue,' with their genus, according to the study, but oftentimes, they haven't been officially documented in the scientific record.
Now, one of these aquarium-bound creatures has been revealed as a species new to science.
Meet Cherax niglin — the peacock crayfish.
The peacock crayfish was shipped to the German team in January from the Kaimana Regency of Indonesia, according to the study.
The crayfish was collected by the local community from under rocks, wood and debris in an 'unnamed river,' researchers said, before it was given to KKCrayfish Farm in Jakarta and sent to Germany.
'To protect the species, we will not reveal the exact location. One of the creeks harboring these crayfish is clear, shallow, with a moderate flow,' researchers said. '... Crayfish hide in short burrows in the riverbank, under larger rocks or wood, or in detritus that is present in all the parts of the creek. The creek is surrounded by forest.'
The species is already available in the pet trade under the common name, the peacock crayfish.
The scientific name, however, honors the partnership between the crayfish community in Indonesia and the German research team.
'Cherax nigli n. sp. Is named in honor of Herbert Nigl, an aquarium wholesaler who for the last 25 years supported us by helping obtain new crayfish species from Papua (Indonesia),' researchers said. 'His continuing effort is essential for achieving a better understanding of the crayfish of this region.'
The surface of the carapace, or its outer shell, of the peacock crayfish is 'smooth' but covered in tiny bumps called tubercles on its sides, according to the study.
The crayfish has 'large' eyes, researchers said, and their chelipeds, or the legs holding their pincers, are 'blue and white with white joints and a red spot' behind the joints.
The back of the crayfish has banded white and blue coloration, photos show, with some exhibiting a more green color than blue.
The peacock crayfish have been found in the southeast of Kaimana Regency, on West Papua, an island in central Indonesia.
The research team includes Christian Lukhaup, Rury Eprilurahman and Thomas von Rintelen.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
2 days ago
- CNBC
Pandemic darlings Moderna, BioNTech are now on two different paths
The Covid-19 pandemic turned Moderna and BioNTech into household names almost overnight. Now the two companies are on different paths. Both Moderna and BioNTech helped pioneer mRNA, or messenger RNA, technology. Moderna staked its entire identity around mRNA, while BioNTech saw it as one piece of a broader portfolio focused on immunology and oncology. The pandemic gave both companies a chance to prove mRNA's promise of using the body's own immune system to protect against viruses or treat diseases. Covid vaccines have generated roughly $45 billion in sales for each company, earning them each about $20 billion since their rollout in late 2020. But despite parallel booms after the pandemic, the vaccine makers have since taken their businesses in different directions — and Wall Street has noticed. The two companies have spent their Covid vaccine windfall differently: Moderna doubled down on its mRNA pipeline, while BioNTech used the money to do deals and diversify, including into one of the hottest emerging areas of cancer drugs. Today, Moderna has about $8.4 billion in cash; the German-based BioNTech has €15.9 billion (or $18.2 billion). The divergence of the two companies is even more stark in their stock performance. Over the past year, Moderna shares have slid about 72%; BioNTech shares have gained nearly 29%. "Just their name was made based off the pandemic and the vaccines that they very quickly brought to people around the world to help get us through that period of time," said Evercore ISI analyst Cory Kasimov. "But the approach they're taking now and the outlook for these two companies is distinctly different at this point." Investors will get a fresh look at both companies' performance as they post quarterly results in the coming days. Moderna is set to report Friday morning, followed by BioNTech on Monday morning. Moderna used its Covid cash to build out its mRNA portfolio, particularly vaccines. It invested in shots for flu, RSV and lesser-known viruses like cytomegalovirus and norovirus. "From our perspective, the pandemic really showed that the science of what we're doing worked, and the natural sort of response to that was to continue down that path and do more," said Moderna President Stephen Hoge. Funding such a large pipeline wasn't cheap. The company has started slashing expenses as sales of its Covid vaccine slide and its RSV vaccine struggles to find a foothold. But the clock is running, said Leerink analyst Mani Foroohar. "We're moving into a time where being a vaccine company is going to be more expensive, tedious and onerous," Foroohar said, citing changes at the Food and Drug Administration under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed skepticism about vaccines. Foroohar in 2022 pointed out what he saw as a Shakespearean tragic flaw in Moderna's business model. That shortcoming, in his view, is that Moderna scaled its pipeline assuming mRNA technology would be the tool for all problems instead of a solution for some problems. Hoge said Moderna's "really good at making mRNA medicines" and decided to focus on doing that. "The reality is that we think over the last 10 years, that focus has actually made us successful, and in the pandemic, it certainly had a big impact and obviously was something that sets us up for the more diverse pipeline we have right now," Hoge said. "So we recognize that we may be going through some cycles, but we're pretty confident in the long-term trajectory we're on, and we're looking forward over the years ahead to showing with all these additional medicines what we're really capable of." Meanwhile, BioNTech decided to use the proceeds from its Covid vaccine to diversify. Out of the limelight as partner Pfizer took the lead on selling the companies' shot, BioNTech expanded into promising new cancer technologies. Most importantly, it acquired a bispecific antibody targeting the proteins PD-L1 and VEG-F. That technology promises to build on – and possibly best – the success that Merck has found with Keytruda, a cancer drug with nearly $30 billion in sales last year alone. That thesis still needs to be proven in large, global clinical trials, but BioNTech is already seeing that deal pay off. Bristol Myers Squibb in June announced it would pay up to $11 billion to partner with BioNTech to codevelop the experimental drug, which BioNTech acquired for a fraction of that. BioNTech in 2023 initially paid Biotheus $55 million up front to license the drug outside China before acquiring the company outright earlier this year for up to $1 billion. "[BioNTech] found an asset, they developed it, and then they got a pharma partner, it's like a dream," said BMO analyst Evan David Seigerman. "So they're really strategic in that, and I think they're adding a lot of diversification, which makes the story a lot less risky if you're just focused on mRNA, vaccines and Covid, and that's super risky, in my view." At the same time, hopes are high that BioNTech's bispecific antibody drug will work, meaning any disappointment ahead could hurt the stock. Investors are watching forthcoming Phase 3 trial results from Summit Therapeutics, which is testing a similar drug for lung cancer. Those data could help — or hurt — BioNTech's stock while it awaits data from its own studies, which could take until 2028. For Moderna, investors want to see if sales of its Covid and RSV vaccines can rebound. The company is also seeking FDA approval for an mRNA flu shot. But at this point, the most intense focus is on Moderna's Phase 3 trial for a personalized cancer treatment for melanoma, said RBC Capital Markets analyst Luca Issi. Moderna may be able to share the first interim data as soon as next year, Hoge said, though the company can't promise an exact date since it's an event-driven study. That means enough people in the trial need to relapse before Moderna can analyze whether its treatment kept cancer from returning longer. If the treatment succeeds, it could launch in 2027 or 2028, Hoge said. That leaves Moderna largely dependent on its vaccines until then. An ongoing patent dispute over Moderna's Covid-19 shot could also eat into the company's cash, analysts say, adding they expect the legal proceedings to play out next year. Time will tell whether the divergent strategies win over Wall Street long term.
USA Today
3 days ago
- USA Today
Video shows sea lions diving off cliff after massive earthquake strikes Russia's far east
A powerful earthquake that struck Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula on July 30 prompted a group of sea lions to dive into nearby waters in search of safety, footage of the ordeal shows. The video taken by a tourist on a nature day trip shows at least 30 sea lions jumping off cliffs and into the waves for safety as an 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck the island of Antsiferov. The earthquake also prompted tsunami alerts along America's West Coast, from Alaska to Hawaii, with no immediate damage reported. Meanwhile, authorities in Ecuador's Galapagos Islands have ordered a precautionary evacuation for residents living in vulnerable areas along the Pacific coast, according to Reuters. More on sea lions on the island The island affected by the earthquake is home to Steller sea lions, the largest members of the family Otariidae, which includes "eared seals," according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. The species was named after German surgeon and naturalist Georg Wilhelm Steller, who described it in 1742, according to NOAA Fisheries. The seals can be found mainly along the North Pacific Ocean rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan, to the Kuril Islands and Sea of Okhotsk. They can also be found in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, the southern coast of Alaska and south to central California. Adult males tend to be much larger than females, the agency said. Adult males can be up to 11 feet long and can weigh up to 2,500 pounds, while adult females are 7.5 to 9.5 feet long and weigh up to 800 pounds. They primarily feed at night and consume over 100 species of fish, including mackerel, walleye pollock, salmon, Pacific cod, flounder and others. They can forage both nearshore and offshore, and can travel long distances within a single season. Disturbances and how they impact sea lions The creatures need 'undisturbed land habitat to rest, molt, socialize, mate, give birth, and nurse small pups during the breeding season,' NOAA Fisheries said. The agency also said Steller sea lions have been disturbed in the past by powerboats, kayaks, paddleboards and other watercraft, as well as approaching aircraft.. 'Disturbance to Steller sea lions on terrestrial haulout sites can lead to individuals fleeing toward the water, causing mass stampedes during which pups and juveniles may be injured or killed when crushed by adults,' the agency said. 'Disturbance can also cause sea lions to flee from the tops of steep rocks or cliff faces, also causing injury or death.' Saleen Martin is a reporter on USA TODAY's NOW team. She is from Norfolk, Virginia – the 757. Email her at sdmartin@
Medscape
4 days ago
- Medscape
‘This Doesn't Look Good': Such Words Can Worsen Patient Pain
Negative expectations are more persistent and more potent than placebo effects, according to a recent study led by Ulrike Bingel, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neuroscience and director of Interdisciplinary Centre for Pain Medicine at University Hospital Essen, Germany. Bingel and her research team found that negative expectations intensify pain more significantly and with greater lasting impact than positive expectations help relieve it. In the study, Bingel and colleagues tested 104 healthy volunteers who were exposed to short-term heat pain. On average, participants rated their pain 11 points higher when primed with negative expectations compared with a control condition. In an interview with Medscape's German edition , Bingel — also spokesperson of the Collaborative Research Center "Treatment Expectation" — explains how clinicians can better communicate with patients to improve outcomes and avoid common pitfalls. Her team has also developed practical communication resources for healthcare providers and patients. Your study shows that negative expectations influence pain perception more strongly and persistently than positive beliefs. Was that the outcome you anticipated? Yes, that was in fact our hypothesis. A smaller prior study had already suggested that nocebo effects — that is, effects driven by negative expectations — are easier to trigger than placebo effects. In an earlier study, we also showed that memories of negative events form more readily and endure longer than positive ones. So, the findings align with each other and support what could be described as an evolutionary 'better safe than sorry' strategy. How should physicians ideally inform patients about a treatment? There are many ways to approach this, depending on the patient's individual needs and preferences. But what's crucial is that patients understand what the treatment is for and what outcomes they can expect. What benefit does it offer me? What's the intended goal? While this may sound straightforward, many patients only know the number of pills to take and when — perhaps their shape or color — but very few understand what the medications are meant to achieve or how they work. Unfortunately, package inserts don't help much with that either. So, the first step is always to explain the treatment objective clearly, why it is the best choice for that patient, and when they can expect it to start working. From there, many communication strategies can be personalized. The key is to help patients begin treatment with clarity and as little anxiety as possible. Should patients be told that negative expectations are more powerful than positive ones? I'm not aware of any studies that specifically address that question. However, we do know that simply educating patients about the nocebo effect can help reduce both the incidence and severity of adverse effects. You recommend avoiding unintentionally negative phrasing. Can you give a few classic examples? The list is practically endless. Just think about what might sound unsettling to you. Phrases like, 'Whew, that doesn't look good,' or 'I really don't know what else to try,' or 'There's nothing we can do,' are all problematic. Even something like, 'You're a high-risk patient,' said ahead of a necessary surgery, can be discouraging. A more reassuring alternative would be, 'We'll take every measure to support you through this operation, even with your preexisting conditions.' I believe communication missteps begin when we lose sight — even briefly — of how powerful our words can be. That's easy to do in the stress of daily clinical practice. But precisely in those moments, it's our responsibility to stay composed, create a secure conversational space, and communicate in a way patients can receive with trust and minimal anxiety. Regarding shared decision-making, patients increasingly want to be involved in treatment decisions. How do you view this in light of your findings? Should patients, for example, be discouraged from reading the package insert too closely? We know that shared decision-making is helpful, even from a placebo and nocebo perspective. That's particularly true when there aren't too many competing treatment options. An overload of choices can be confusing or even distressing. But when the clinical guidelines support options A, B, or C equally, involving patients in the choice is beneficial. The option they trust more will have a psychological edge. Where that trust comes from differs for each person. Maybe the drug's mechanism of action feels more intuitive to them. Maybe they know someone who did well on it. Or maybe they overheard something positive during morning rounds. That doesn't really matter. What matters is that, in my view, patient preferences should always be considered — within the boundaries of evidence-based, guideline-compliant care. To what extent are your findings transferable to clinical settings? Are further studies planned? I'm convinced that the effects we observed in healthy volunteers likely underestimate what happens in clinical practice. Many medical scenarios — whether evaluating acute symptoms, delivering a new and possibly serious diagnosis like cancer, or managing chronic illnesses with limited treatment options — are inherently anxiety-provoking and often accompanied by fear and negative expectations. We know from research that all of this fuels nocebo effects. There's already a substantial body of evidence showing that a significant proportion of adverse effects seen in routine clinical care are driven by nocebo responses. The next step in research isn't to confirm this effect again, but to test targeted therapeutic strategies aimed at minimizing or even preventing nocebo effects in day-to-day care. Doing so could make treatments more effective and better tolerated and help ensure that patients don't avoid essential medications due to fear.
