Close
today i learned (til)

A New Bumpy Buddy in the Deep Sea

April 24, 2026

People often say that humans have only discovered 5% of the ocean to this day. While this exact number is often argued, it is no secret that much of the ocean is unknown to us. However, scientists have recently made a discovery of a new fish in the depths of the sea: the bumpy snailfish. 

 

What is a snailfish?

The bumpy snailfish, also known as Careproctus colliculi, belongs to the Lipradae family, which is one of the only few species on Earth that have adapted to live between what are considered the “abyssal deep” and “hadal deep” parts of the ocean (Scharzans & Gerringer, 2023). These parts of the ocean are typically extremely difficult to live in due to the immense water pressure, darkness, and lack of food. However, it seems that these depths are where snailfish (fish in the Lipradae family) thrive. 

There are currently 450 accepted species of snailfish. Scientists identify them through their lack of scales along with a suction disk on their pelvis, which allow them to attach to other surfaces (Gerringer et al., 2025).

 

Discovery of the Bumpy Snailfish 

According to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, the fish have large heads, while the rest of the body is made up of a jelly-like substance (Nava, 2025). Snailfish are given their name because they have a disk on their bellies that allow them to attach to the ocean floor, much like a snail would (Nava, 2025). This newly discovered version of the snailfish is a light pink color, a round head, large eyes, and a bumpy texture on its skin. Thus, it was named the bumpy snailfish. 

Researchers describe the hadal trenches as depths greater than 6000 meters below sea level, where it is easier to study snailfish that father around bait falls (Gerringer et al., 2025). However, it is more difficult to find them in the abyssal depths, which are around 3000 to 5000 meters deep in the ocean (Gerringer et al., 2025). This is what makes the bumpy snailfish special, as it is a new lifeform in the abyssal depths of the ocean for researchers to study.

In order to determine if these were a new species of fish, clips of the fins were collected from dissected snailfish. These tissues were used for DNA extraction, where researchers were able to compare the DNA sequences of previous snailfish to this one (Gerringer et al., 2025). 

 

Works Cited

Gerringer, M. E., Suplicz, S., Palmeri, J.L., Fregosi, L., Woodworth, B.H., McMahon, E., Shepard, M., Peoples, L.M., Drazen, J.C. (2025). Descriptions of Three Newly Discovered Abyssal Snailfishes (Liparidae) from the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Ichthyology & Herpetology, 113 (3), 487-506. https://doi.org/10.1643/i2024069 

Nava, R. (2025). MBARI’s advanced underwater technology reveals a new species of deep-sea snailfish. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. https://www.mbari.org/news/mbaris-advanced-underwater-technology-reveals-a-new-species-of-deep-sea-snailfish/ 

Scharzhans, W.W., Gerringer, M.E. (2023). Otoliths of the deepest-living fishes. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2023.104079 

0Likes
About Author

Hey hi! I'm a CS major here at Georgia Tech that enjoys learning all things art and design.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Three Dog Star Night (Part 2)
today i learned (til)
A Future of Painless Tattoos
today i learned (til)
Treating U87 EGFP Glibolastoma Cells with Nickel Sulfate!
today i learned (til)
New Houston: We have a problem

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.