Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Clone Oldest Living Organism
goran72 sends along the story of the world's oldest living organism, a shrub that grows in Tasmania and reproduces only by cloning. Tasmanian scientists have cloned Lomatia tasmanica as part of a battle to save it from a deadly fungus. From the RTBG's press release (which seems to load slowly in the US):"The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens [RTBG] is working towards securing the future of a rare and ancient Tasmanian native plant... Lomatia tasmanica, commonly known as King's Lomatia, is critically endangered with less than 500 plants growing in the wild in a tiny pocket of Tasmania's isolated south west. The RTBG has been propagating the plant from cuttings since 1994... 'Fossil leaves of the plant found in the south west were dated at 43,600 years old and given that the species is a clone, it is possibly the oldest living plant in the world,' [Botanist Natalie Tapson] said."
So can we have our Dodo bird back?
If this site is "news for nerds", you'd think that nerds would understand what cloning was, and that cloning plants isn't some nefarious activity.
First, of course, what exactly constitutes a single "organism" is a bit controversial, especially with plants, and especially with clonal colonies. But even if you accept clonal colonies as bona-fide organisms, Pando in Utah may or may not be older than Lomatia tasmanica , depending on which age estimates you believe.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Oldest living single organism, not oldest species.
This is arguing something different--- not that it's the earliest-to-emerge species with still-living individuals, but that this particular individual is the oldest one still alive. That depends on your definition of "organism" and "individual" and such. Clonal colonies are a bit of an edge case--- they reproduce by continuously producing what could be seen as new individuals, or could be seen as just new branches of the original individual (they often come up from the same root system). To take a similar example, is Pando a single organism with a lot of trunks, which has been alive for tens of thousands of years; or is it a colony of individual trees, each of which has been around a lot less long?
And you can find even more edge cases--- there are stable mats of seagrass that might be 100,000-year-old organisms, if you consider clonal colonies to be individual organisms.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I believe they mean oldest living organism, in the sense of oldest living individual creature, and not the species as a whole.
In other words, they have a specific plant which first sprouted nearly 50,000 years ago. If there's an individual horseshoe crab that is 50,000 years old I'd be very surprised.
As a horticulturalist who's worked on tissue culture projects...
1- tissue culture is growing a piece of plant of a medium (usually agar with nutrients) through various stages
2- there is no universal formula and different plants need different nutrient and environmental mixes to go through each stage
3- you're trying to get this piece of plant to create a root and shoot system
4- it requires many different steps and setups/transplants to walk a piece of plant material through the stages to where you can actually put a piece of rooted material into the ground and know it will make a plant
5- you'd be amazed how picky (or impossible...so far) it is to coax a chunk of plant tissue into creating a whole new plant out of it's cells
Since when were clones of something considered to be the same organism. I better tell my friend who has an identical twin that she is technically the same person as her sister.
Did you read the article the thing is being threated by a fungus not native to its habitat. In other words its something MAN brought to it, that is killing it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
So they cloned a plant that has hitherto successfully cloned itself for a thousands years without any help?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
....which first sprouted nearly 50,000 years ago....
How do they know this? How do they know that their clock has been running accurately for that length of time? That is always one of the assumptions that is taken for granted when someone gives an age of thousands, millions or even billions of years. The assumptions may be valid, but the're still beliefs, because nobody knows for sure.
All theory is gray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long-living_organisms
So we could have dodo-egg-flavored dog and cat food? Their meat tasted like ass and was somewhat less edible.
I'd rather have brought back a species whose extinction humans attributed to through over-hunting.
Like mammoth. I imagine they should be rather tasty.
Mmmmm... Mammoth ribs...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
it is worth noting that in horticulture 'cloning' is simply the technical name for the process of propagating a plant through the use of cuttings.
you need no lab to do it - just simply a pair of scissors (or a scalpel), some rooting gel/powder and a rooting medium (compost will do), and a healthy donor ('mother') plant to work from. using a propagation unit will also give better results (perhaps better still if it's heated). 'cloning' plants in this fashion is actually very easy to do - my mum's a keen gardener and she does it with all kinds of plants all the time (one poster here claims to have cloned a plant at age 6 - and i have no reason to doubt that at all!!).
cloning is the primary method used to produce lots of (genetically) identical baby plants for use in commercial growing of all kinds (including, afaiu, in the illegal production of marijuana)
personally, i don't think this is particularly newsworthy, even if they are doing this with one of the oldest plant species in the world.
i believe they do core samples of the root systems and check rings. like ice cores. like all prehistoric analysis, it could be possible that 500 new rings grew in one year, but seeing as there is no evidence of that happening yet, it's improbable.
Why would we need another Bob Dole?
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
The underlying assumption here of course is that each ring corresponds to one year.
And it's a reasonable assumption, since that's what has been observed in plants for a very long time.
I think we can reasonably take "natural" as shorthand for "not influenced by humans".
How can that be reasonable when it is an absolutely false dichotomy?
People make the same error when it comes to "natural herbal supplements" vs. "drugs". (Chemicals are chemicals, no matter how they're created. If a compound has an effect on the human body, it can be toxic. Google "water intoxication". Anything "completely safe" is worthless, medically.) The actions of humans are no less "natural" than ants building a colony or beavers building a dam. We just happen to have the intelligence and opposable thumbs to manufacture more sophisticated materials.
We might have some competition for most disruptive force to ever appear on this planet (e.g. the first oxygen-exhaling organisms), but we're definitely the worst to appear in eons, and we're unique in that we're the first thing to appear that has a fair chance of killing off all life on the planet.
"Killing all life on the planet" ain't as easy as it looks. Even if we did our absolute worst and nuked each other all to Hell, while simultaneously letting global warming run amok, there would still be room, at the very least, for extremophiles.
Note: I'm not saying that's a good idea. I'm simply saying that one facet of human arrogance is the idea that we have the power to kill all life on the planet. We don't. You'd be almost as accurate if you said we had the power to destroy all life in the universe.
Basically what I'm saying is: come on, be reasonable. Of course humans are an abnormal influence on the planet.
Basically, you're incorrect.