Heres an even older one DNA 415 million years old, almost everlasting!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34467577/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Yes, these DNA tests must also be getting quicker and easier!

Had some difficulty with scat and bobbiddy-bee etc. Thought it might be something to do with a bishy bishy barney bee (locally meant a bumble bee). I am told its music!

I would have thought actually that DNA lasted quite well, and is not characterised by degradation but by longevity. I think the limit now is reckoned to be about 100,000 years. Fairly recently two developments have helped, one is that DNA is well protected within hair strands and dry samples are good and often better than wet (so there is hope for shunka warakin maybe)!

The study of scat is already a very valuable tool for scientists. For one, it holds an immense amount of information. You can discern not only the DNA of the animal, but also its diet, health condition, and as has been mentioned, the presence of any parasites or bacterial organsims.

Studying scat is very useful with animals that are elusive, nocturnal, or otherwise difficult to accurately track through usual methods (sound like any cryptids we know of?). A study of the scat can yield a lot of information about these creatures without ever even seeing them. Conservation biologists find scat useful because they can keep track of rare animals that are shy or difficult to find and since DNA can be pretty accurately gathered from the samples, a rough idea can be formed of a given species’ population dynamics as well as the general health of the population.

Some of the animals that have been studied through scat samples are tigers, pandas, and forest elephants. In all of these cases, a good amount of data on the population and the condition of these populations was gathered through this method.

Studying scat is certainly an important tool for cryptozoology, and it is good to see it getting attention here.

On the other hand, I know that the degradation of DNA is a real problem, and I wonder if the fecal environment might not accelerate the process. If so, dried potential bigfoot droppings might be less useful for DNA than they might at first seem. That wouldn’t make them worthless, but it would definitely be disappointing to any researcher.

Hookworm-like symptoms have been around since the time they were written about on papyrus papers of ancient Egypt (c. 1500 B.C.E.), so Sanderson probably had an old sense that “hookworms” were interwoven in all of these scatological results.

“The hookworm is a parasitic nematode worm that lives in the small intestine of its host, which may be a mammal such as a dog, cat, or human. Two species of hookworms commonly infect humans, Ancylostoma duodenale and Necator americanus. Necator americanus predominates in the Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, China, and Indonesia, while A. duodenale predominates in the Middle East, North Africa, India and (formerly) in southern Europe. Hookworms are thought to infect more than 600 million people worldwide. The A. braziliense and A. tubaeforme species infect cats, while A. caninum infects dogs. Uncinaria stenocephala infects both dogs and cats.” Source.

“The roundworm (also nematodes) family Trichuridae includes the genus Trichuris, often referred to as whipworms.” Source.

“Nematodes commonly parasitic on humans include ascarids (Ascaris), filarids, hookworms, pinworms (Enterobius) and whipworms (Trichuris trichiura).” Source.

The relationships are still confusing to me here in 2009. Unfortunately for Sanderson in the 1950s, he didn’t even have Wikipedia around to help him out with a quick clarification checkup on hookworms, Trichuris, whipworms, and roundworms (no personal pun intended for all those times Sanderson was barefoot with the natives in the tropics).

I speculate this could cause problems without knowing quite how. If Sasquatch was something completely new might its DNA be missed? Bearing in mind this lab. has not produced one positive cryptid result in 15 years of testing.

Scat sample are a good source of DNA and I understand a scraping from the outside of the stool is made picking up cells from the gut lining. This was done successfully when samples were collected, at some risk in the wild, from some hugh primitive looking bull elephants thought to be mammoth like and compared with normal looking wild elephants. There was no significant difference apparently. I may be wrong but I believe those bulls, with hugh head bumps were in Bhutan. As DNA science understanding still has a long way to go I always look on these kind of results as somewhat interim and hope samples are kept for future consideration.

One gets the impression that scat sample are a neglected resource and I feel that in this respect science is not delivering.

There is one part that confuses me from this passage. He mentions Trichuris and then references “Hook-Worms.” One species of Trichuris is the whipworm found in dogs, but I do not know of any hookworms that belong to Trichuris, although I guess the taxonomy could have changed.

On a similar note, I was lucky enough to find a collection of Fate Magazines from the 60s that featured dozens of his articles at a local antique store. Quite a nice find, even if no one else saw their value (.25 each).

There is a lot, and there are a number of stories of “authorities” treating it in just the way Sanderson describes. Or outright tossing it.

I’d be hot under the collar too, Ivan. Sorry, man.