Hi Faith,
Curious about this bug. How much of its DNA is of the sort called "junk DNA"?
Well, in the first place, I have substantial issues with the term "junk DNA". Since that discussion would be way off topic for this thread, I'll be brief. In a nutshell, IIRC some 75-80% of the genome represented non-coding sequences. I'll have to dig around to find the actual reference if you want me to. Whether "non-coding" = "non-functional" is another issue, and one that has yet to be resolved. My personal opinion is that functionality of most of what we call "junk DNA" will be determined through more study. Some, of course, represents true junk: left over bits and pieces from broken genes, viral retrotransposons, etc. Some is possibly structural, some appears to have a role in mutation/variation (eg. evolution) and some of what we used to call junk is actually implicated in early embryonic development. It's still a hot issue in genetics.
Hope that satisfies your curiosity.