It seems like the only “leap” is partnering with some other group. Which, yes, organizing is critical on large scale projects… but for those of us looking for a breakthrough, I guess we’ve been clickbaited.
The submitter altered the headline
A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
21–30 of 60 posts
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#22I wonder, have they asked the people of Tasmania if they want it back? It's Jurassic Park writ small.
De-extinction doesn't necessarily mean they will release animals back into the wild. Presumably a portion of animal behaviour is learned and passed down from the previous generation. Animals produced by de-extinction will be lacking these behaviours and perhaps best off in captivity.
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are periodic sightings of them. Although not with high enough confidence or documentation to say definitely, "They are still out there".
It's not plausible that such a large animal can have a self-sustaining population in the wild, and not be properly detected by the scientific community for 100 years.
Twelve animals thought to be extinct, some for hundreds, one for millions of years, before being rediscovered: https://www.treehugger.com/lazarus-species-extinct-animals-f...
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#24Wonder if they are successful if they just go extinct again. Will they know how to hunt and reproduce? Interesting test of nature vs nurture.
My family dog growing up was taught to hunt song birds by their mother. I don't think I've seen something so cute as a mother retriever crouch walking through the brush with 8 little pups in tow.
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#25that taxidermy job should be redone. the head/face looks nothing like the real thing. it looks comical, like a bad sock puppet.
https://earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/tasman...
vs
https://www.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/image/0004/4255339/...
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#26Wow, I was just reading about Benjamin, the last known captive thylacine filmed in 1935 > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-footage-benjam...
There are periodic sightings of them. Although not with high enough confidence or documentation to say definitely, "They are still out there".
Not exciting enough for the cryptozoologists to track
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#27If they are successful, how do they navigate challenges related to inbreeding given what is likely to be a very small population of adult animals to work with?
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#28Any thoughts on mitochondria? They are basically sub-organisms with their own DNA.
Another organism’s mitochondria is going to be different.
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#29that taxidermy job should be redone. the head/face looks nothing like the real thing. it looks comical, like a bad sock puppet. https://earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/tasman... vs https://www.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/image/0004/4255339/...
The photos are from different angles, it’s hard to say whether they look that much different. Of course the muzzle is going to appear shorter in a front view and it’s hard to tell what the mouth line would be from the first photo.
Re: A lab pursuing de-extinction of the thylacine partners with a genetics company
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are periodic sightings of them. Although not with high enough confidence or documentation to say definitely, "They are still out there".
It's not plausible that such a large animal can have a self-sustaining population in the wild, and not be properly detected by the scientific community for 100 years.
One might be greatly overestimating the number of scientist per hectare.