Slashdot Mirror


Bringing Giant Tortoises Back From Extinction

fizzysister writes "The BBC reports that scientists at Yale are intending to resurrect an extinct species of Galapagos tortoise, the Geochelone elephantopus. Unfortunately, not in the style of Jurassic Park, so no tortoise-based theme parks just yet. They will, however, be using genetic profiling of living tortoises that carry some of the elephantopus genes, to select the most appropriate of these to mate and thus eventually (after a century or more) create a generation of 'pure' Geochelone elephantopus individuals."

31 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. TFA doesn't mention by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    any plans on training these resurrected giant tortoises in the art of Ninjitsu. What a gip.

    1. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Cow+Jones · · Score: 4, Funny

      any plans on training these resurrected giant tortoises in the art of Ninjitsu.

      Dude, those giant turtles are scary enough without Ninjitsu.
      In fact, one of them is so huge and powerful that four elephants couldn't manage to keep it down, unless they in turn were weighed down by a huge disk-shaped rock.

      CJ

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    2. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's where you're wrong, it isn't just one turtle.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:TFA doesn't mention by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Funny

      And a rat to train them. Don't forget the rat.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    4. Re:TFA doesn't mention by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's where you're wrong, it isn't just one turtle.

      That's right! It's turtles all the way down!

    5. Re:TFA doesn't mention by Abreu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, no...

      The current theory is that Great A'Tuin is travelling through the universe in search of a mate.

      When this happens, a cataclysmic event (colloquially known as the "Big Bang") will occur.

      That is why so many sages have tried to find out Great A'Tuins gender...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    6. Re:TFA doesn't mention by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "What a gip."

      It's "gyp", derived from "Gypsies". Please get your culturally insensitive references correct or the PC police will run out of work, and we don't want that, now do we? Otherwise they might get involved in more important things, like changing housing policy to provide loans to unqualified applicants.

      Oh, wait...

      (This offtopic flamebait brought to you by the letter Y and the number "I paid off my fucking loans why can't everybody else?!")

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    7. Re:TFA doesn't mention by lpangelrob · · Score: 4, Funny

      The original poster may have been referring to the fact that Ronald Reagan, the original Gipper, also failed to fund the U.S. Ninja/Giant Tortoise Defense Initiative.

  2. This could redefine the term species by davidwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    If this interbreeding of existing species is successful, it begs the question:

    Are the existing species really separate species, or are the merely subspecies or even just breeds of the same species?

    The answer depends on the definition of species.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:This could redefine the term species by pm_rat_poison · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, no. Species is a set of animals that interbreed and create fertile offspring. In terms of process, I don't see how that's any different to breeding different breeds of dogs the old fashioned way. In terms of purpose, instead of targeting a set of genotype that creates a desired phenotype, they're just targeting for a genotype that doesn't exist anymore.

    2. Re:This could redefine the term species by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought the definition rested on the the ability of the offspring to procreate successfully.

      Which, I am told, does happen occasionally for jack-asses.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    3. Re:This could redefine the term species by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Which, I am told, does happen occasionally for jack-asses."

      Occasionally? With the amount of jackasses in the world, how could they NOT be breeding amongst themselves and multiplying?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:This could redefine the term species by PJ1216 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You just gave justification for deviating from standards. That same principles can be applied to Microsoft and Internet Explorer YET I bet people will all complain. The purpose of language is to be clear and concise. If you start giving multiple meanings to phrases, you will eventually muddy the water, so to speak. Yes, one understood what he was saying, but where would you like to arbitrarily draw the line of what is allowable and what is not. Internet Explorer's deviation from web standards are used by a majority of people AND those deviations aren't magical... people know what they mean. So, its usage is widespread and everyone understands it. Whether or not its part of the original standard is irrelevant. The bastardization of the standard has lead to a new one on the internet and nothing is wrong with how IE uses it.

      To be clear, I find standards to be important. Yes, one can steer away from the standard and still make sense, but that doesn't make it acceptable. As if you allow that, what stops them from steering a tad away from there, so on and so forth?

      A million people can be wrong.

    5. Re:This could redefine the term species by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So a bunch of logicians and linguists are telling everyone that they are speaking the language incorrectly.

      Not everyone. I for one use the term properly, or I don't use it at all.

      This usage is widespread.

      So is using "it's" as a genitive. So is the use of "loose" as an antonym of win. If the belief that the Moon is made of cheese was widespread, would it make it correct?

      The "common mans bastardization" of the phrase has lead to a new meaning

      I've seen plenty of people shoot themselves in the foot, but you've plumbed new depths there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Bene Gesserit @ Yale??? by Vampo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought they were not supposed to appear for another few thousand years. They are obviously moving into the first experimental stages of their master plan ;)

  4. Very Cool by FatSean · · Score: 3, Funny

    I want my own giant tortoise for a pet!

    --
    Blar.
  5. useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can someone explain the value of these giant tortioses in objective, real terms?

    There are a few things that would be useful about bringing back an extinct tortoise.

    For one, it allows the animal to reclaim its place in the ecosystem. I don't have information on what caused the extinction of this tortoise, but I know of certain mammals that are fond of killing slow-moving things. If the tortoise went extinct not by natural selection, then it may have left a void in its natural ecosystem that could have downstream effects on stability of the same.

    Though perhaps more tangible is that some of these tortoises could live 150+ years. If we want to study aging and what mechanisms could prolong a healthy life, then something that lives extraordinarily long would be quite valuable. Of course we could study old trees, but we have more in common with other vertebrates.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:useful study animal by timster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is behind your assumption that extinction by natural selection (as opposed, I assume, to human activity) is better for an ecosystem? Isn't evidence of ecological catastrophes of all sizes common in the fossil record?

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is behind your assumption that extinction by natural selection (as opposed, I assume, to human activity) is better for an ecosystem?

      Generally natural selection takes out a species when it either no longer fills is niche in the ecosystem, or the niche no longer exists. If external forces (such as humans) knock a species out of existence, then the ecosystem is out of balance due to the loss of that species.

      Isn't evidence of ecological catastrophes of all sizes common in the fossil record?

      Ecological catastrophes are a good question. However, when something like that happens (be it asteroids, volcanoes, plate tectonics, etc), there are usually a very large number of species eliminated from an area at once. Yes, the ecosystem will come back, but it generally re-emerge with much different flora and fauna than what it had prior.

      Catastrophes happen in the record, yes. But individual extinctions of species due to non-natural events are of a different scale and could have dramatic effects on a delicate, semi-isolated ecosystem such as the Galapagos.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:useful study animal by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the tortoise went extinct not by natural selection, then it may have left a void in its natural ecosystem that could have downstream effects on stability of the same.

      And how else would they go extinct? Humans are as much a part of natural selection as anything else. The very definition of natural selection dictates that some species will become extinct while others (humans for example) become obscenely populous.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    4. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And how else would they go extinct?

      Going extinct because something enjoys killing you is dramatically different than going extinct because you are not able to compete effectively for resources.

      The giant tortoises seemed to be doing pretty well for resources in their environment, until a new animal showed up that enjoyed killing them.

      Humans are as much a part of natural selection as anything else

      Couldn't that reasoning be used to justify humans driving any animal to extinction that they don't like? What if I have something against timberwolves? Could I start killing them on sight and claim natural selection?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:useful study animal by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Couldn't that reasoning be used to justify humans driving any animal to extinction that they don't like? What if I have something against timberwolves? Could I start killing them on sight and claim natural selection?

      Yep. Unless you have some explanation other than natural selection for how humans got to be advanced enough to do that.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    6. Re:useful study animal by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Insightful

      on the theory that human activity is somehow unnatural. I would contend that human activity is perfectly natural

      I would say that not all human activity is natural. Humans are on a very, very, short list of animals that kill just to kill. Look at the extinction of the dodo bird, for example. The dodo bird had a distinct niche in its own environment, until humans wiped it out. But how many of those birds were killed for anything other than enjoyment?

      Also, if the giant tortoise was destroyed because it was slow moving (as someone above mentioned), wouldn't that mean its niche was gone?

      People killed it because it was slow moving and easy to kill. Some people just have an urge to kill anything they can.

      However, the slow moving lifestyle of the tortoise was fine for its environment. Its nice was in no way diminished by its slow movement, and there were even other species that developed symbiotic relationships with the tortoise (see the galapagos finches) whose niches were disrupted by the loss tortoise populations.

      So to answer your question - no - the niche of the tortoise was not gone.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:useful study animal by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...the ecosystem is out of balance...

      Please explain "out of balance" in objective terms. Is there only one "balance"? Or are there many? This "balance" concept seems to imply that a particular species is very important to the health of a particular ecosystem. How do we know when this is the case? Or are you saying it's always the case and that every single species is vitally important to every ecosystem it inhabits (or has ever inhabited)?

      I have seen "out of balance" seemingly used to mean "I don't prefer that outcome" -- an intentional deception.

      But individual extinctions of species due to non-natural events are of a different scale and could have dramatic effects on a delicate, semi-isolated ecosystem such as the Galapagos.

      What is the evidence to support the characterizations of "dramatic" and/or "delicate"?

      And isn't a relatively isolated ecosystem less valuable? It would seem like the important, valuable ecosystems are the ones adjacent to populations or crop production or otherwise have a large monetary or other tangible value associated with a certain condition.

    8. Re:useful study animal by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bogus argument. Humans are part of nature and the natural world. Therefore human activity is as "natural" as a beaver dam. Any other definition of "natural" is... unnatural. ;-)

      The notion that human activities can somehow create an "unnatural" ecosystem is equally bogus. The problem, really, is that our activities lower the _diversity_ of ecosystems. A less diverse ecosystem is no less natural than any other, but it is certainly less resilient. This may cause sustainability problems in the short term, evolutionarily speaking (i.e. until open niches and selection pressure re-diversify the ecosystem).

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  6. Playing God! by bigattichouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    I imagine people will scream about "Playing God"(tm) in these circumstances. They, of course, say, "What a miracle" when they are brought back from what should have been a death by heart attack. Personally, I think small northern russian and canadian provinces could really have a boom if we'd bring back mastodons and such, selling the hunting rights. In my view, you're only "Playing God" if you're talking velociraptors and making your own artificial creepy stuff. I just can't see "Giant Tortoises go on rampage", unless they have jet packs and live in Tokyo.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Playing God! by lilomar · · Score: 2, Funny

      In my view, you're only "Playing God" if you're talking velociraptors and making your own artificial creepy stuff.

      I'm a talking velociraptor making my own artificial creepy stuff -- you insensitive clod!

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  7. hold it ... Geochelone elephantopus is NOT extinct by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Informative

    gct says one species, Geochelone elephantopus, with 14 different races or sub-species, three of which are believed to be extinct.

    So just to clarify, several races are extinct and this discusses bringing them back to life. The species itself though is not extinct ... it's alive and well.

  8. Re:what's next? by ksheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Giant tortoises are land dwelling animals. Having seen a few of them at Reptile Gardens, I really doubt that they could swim. The young ones are surprisingly quick though.
    I'm curious why they are going for traditional cross breeding techniques instead of using the start of the art genetic manipulation.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  9. Species definition and Galapagos restoration by wagr · · Score: 3, Informative

    The definition of species from your primary or secondary education about critters that can breed is a gross simplification. (I pity if you heard it in college also.) That is one basis for determining a species. Others are:

    Location, meaning these individuals could procreate with those, but they never travel far enough to do so (like across an ocean). Sometimes called "populations."

    Morphology, i.e. color, patterns, size.

    Habits, i.e. where they rest or what they eat.

    Mating preferences can be based on all of the above. An example: finches that rest in trees and eat small seeds from succulent bushes tend to prefer the same, even though they can mate with finches that rest in rocks and eat larger seeds from weeds. These groups may live intermingled, they just don't choose mates that way. New chicks learn patterns from their parents, act that way as they age, and hang out with (mate) those who are similar. This is akin to humans marrying only folks of the same social class. Studies on the finches in the Galapagos show that nearly any "species" CAN mate with the others, they just don't.

    The other large reason to define species is funding. More folks will donate to help the "Floreana tortoise" if it is called its own species, even though it is identical to the "Isabela tortoise" except for 1) the island they were/are on, and 2) a few genes. The rallying cry, "Restore the Floreana tortoise" is catchier than, "Move some tortoises and manage their breeding based on DNA."

    The article mentions how tortoises may have been moved from Floreana to Isabela, but they don't mention the real causes of the extinction in the first place. The same whaling ships left goats on the islands to breed and create a population they can harvest meat from next time they visit. The goat population exploded. These goats eat the same bushes the tortoises eat, depriving them of food. The ships also left rats which ate their eggs. Over the past 10 years, eradication campaigns have wiped out the goats from almost all of the islands, and have eliminated rats from some of them. Now that the main causes of the extinctions have been (are are being) removed, efforts to reclaim the populations are starting. This is just one.

    For more information, see http://www.galapagos.org/2008/ or look up "Lonesome George."

  10. The Book of Secrets by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 2, Funny

    The rat is optional. There's now a book to train them. Just have your children and grandchildren teach them to read.