No, it's a completely different bug, "only" showing the same symptoms. So the discussion of 648 would lead to the wrong direction.
Or should bug 648 be reopened? There are a lots of dups of that bug out there and it may be less confusing to continue to reference that bug (otherwise people will say "It [bug 648] says it's fixed!" then someone has to respond "well, yes, it was, but now it's not, see bug XYZ").
Adding a link from 648 to the new one might be a good idea anyway...
Powered by MHonArc 2.6.10