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."
any plans on training these resurrected giant tortoises in the art of Ninjitsu. What a gip.
Monstar L
I want my own giant tortoise for a pet!
Blar.
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.
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.
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.
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
gct says one species, Geochelone elephantopus, with 14 different races or sub-species, three of which are believed to be extinct.
... it's alive and well.
So just to clarify, several races are extinct and this discusses bringing them back to life. The species itself though is not extinct
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."
Not everyone. I for one use the term properly, or I don't use it at all.
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?
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."