Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Extinct Pyrenean Ibex Cloned

Posted by Soulskill on from the intrepid-endeavor dept.

jamie points out a story in the Telegraph about a project to clone the Pyrenean Ibex (known also as bucardo), a species that went extinct in 2000. Before the last known member of the species died, scientists took tissue samples to begin a project to clone the animal. "Using techniques similar to those used to clone Dolly the sheep, known as nuclear transfer, the researchers were able to transplant DNA from the tissue into eggs taken from domestic goats to create 439 embryos, of which 57 were implanted into surrogate females. " Now, for the first time, one of them has survived the gestation period, living for seven minutes after birth. One of the researchers said, "The delivered kid was genetically identical to the bucardo. In species such as bucardo, cloning is the only possibility to avoid its complete disappearance."

17 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. 7 minutes! by Essequemodeia · · Score: 5, Funny

    So.... I'm hoping the Ibex can breed within the first 3 minutes. Yes?

    1. Re:7 minutes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, that is why they went extinct... the females wanted to much romance and mood music ;)

  2. HUMANS: - by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only species with the idiocy and shortsightedness to make a species go extinct, and the only species with the passionate pursuit knowledge to bring them back.

    1. Re:HUMANS: - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only species with the idiocy and shortsightedness to make a species go extinct

      Ridiculous. Humans may be better at causing extinctions than other species but that isn't because other species are reluctant to do it, or consider the implications at all.

    2. Re:HUMANS: - by alx5000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and since we have the ability to both consider the implications of and avoid the extinction of other species, we should at least try to be a little worse at it...

      --
      My 0.02 cents
  3. Ibex 8.10 Cloned by auric_dude · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does Mark Shuttleworth know about this?

  4. Know I'm just a simple by Splab · · Score: 5, Funny

    city living boy, but when did goats start laying eggs?

  5. Nature, red in tooth and claw. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only species with the idiocy and shortsightedness to make a species go extinct,

    Completely utterly wrong.

    All species end up extinct. They are replaced by others which are more fit for the environment.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Nature, red in tooth and claw. by Anpheus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      After enough adaptations and mutations, you cease to classify an animal as being in the same species as its ancestor. If these adaptations occur based on local conditions, then it isn't uncommon for the two species to coexist. No matter that they haven't evolved yet enough to invent taxes, death is still certain. And if the local adaptations make one species better globally, then you'll see competition and likely, the extinction of the ancestor's species.

      You have to remember that the definition of species is vague, that the tree of life has many branches, and that inevitably, all branches terminate. So evolution constantly produces more and more species, and even when there is no branch, a large enough change will be considered the line between one species and another.

      Evolution doesn't necessitate extinction, it's the semantics we use to describe it and the cold hard fact that you can't indefinitely sustain every species that has ever existed on Earth.

    2. Re:Nature, red in tooth and claw. by mdarksbane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And this is the fun problem with the layman's explanation of evolution. Unless you were trying to be funny.

      The fossil record is littered with hundreds and thousands of creatures that have no direct genetic descendants. They failed, they went extinct, they lost.

      However, quite a few other ones survived to evolve into the mass of life we have today.

      Natural selection is based on extinction. The failed mutations die. Sometimes the whole failed species dies. But somewhere up the evolutionary tree, their second or third cousins twice removed were better adapted and survived.

      It is pure arrogance to think we are the only creatures who drive this process. How many herbivores were eaten by tigers? How many carnivores went extinct their prey moved on or died? How many fish died simply because their part of the world dried up? How many diseases have wiped out hundreds of acres of trees - entire species have gone locally extinct in the last hundred years. Yes, we have a huge affect, but we aren't the only thing.

      Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't try to mitigate our effects - if we destroy the environment, we'll be dealing with an entirely new mess that *we* didn't evolve for. But have some perspective.

    3. Re:Nature, red in tooth and claw. by 10Neon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of them are quite good at it. Raccoons, pigeons, rats, cockroaches, to name a few. Sure, they're not species we particularly like but it is certainly not the case that an urbanized environment is a human-only zone.

      --
      The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    4. Re:Nature, red in tooth and claw. by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Wrong. Evolution is false.

      Evolution is a mathematical concept that can be applied to physical and biological (and other) systems. Saying that evolution is false is a lot like saying that optimization is false, or that group theory is false.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    5. Re:Nature, red in tooth and claw. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Saying that evolution is false is a lot like saying that optimization is false

      But optimization is, by default, false unless you specify the -O option.

      --
      My blog
  6. Inbred sheep by VernorVinge · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no way cloning a single animal can be a viable method to reintroduce a species. The inbreeding necessary to maintain the line will eventually destroy its genetic health. Wild populations generally require 50 different animals in order to maintain the species' genetic viability. I would submit that in controlled laboratory environment, 32 specimens or 16 pairs would be the minimul viable population. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Minimum_viable_population_size/

    --
    Stay skeptical, my friends.
  7. I love your idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's start by killing you off first.

  8. Re:Extinct? by Smallpond · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or to become extinct twice.

  9. D: by onionlee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Assholes made the Ibex extinct... again.