Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Bringing Giant Tortoises Back From Extinction 125

Posted by timothy from the reviving-the-turtle-hegemony dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bringing Giant Tortoises Back From Extinction More

Bringing Giant Tortoises Back From Extinction

Comments Filter:

  • TFA doesn't mention (Score:5, Funny)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @10:17AM (#25119949) Homepage Journal
    any plans on training these resurrected giant tortoises in the art of Ninjitsu. What a gip.

    • Re:TFA doesn't mention (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cow Jones ( 615566 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @10:51AM (#25120533)

      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

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The plans are right here. You just need plenty of radioactive waste to finish the job. :-)

    • Re:TFA doesn't mention (Score:5, Funny)

      by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @11:35AM (#25121297)

      "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?!")

    • They haven't figured out a way of training a giant rat to teach the tortoises.

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pm_rat_poison ( 1295589 )
      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.
      • As I understand it, the ability to produce fertile offspring is the primary requirement for defining a species. However, in the case of many plants and animals (I.e. orchids of same or similar genus or grizzly bears mating with polar bears.) the species is further defined by the likelihood of sexual reproduction. The cause of speciation(The emergence of two species from one.) can be locality(Galapagos), some sort of behavioral trigger(Male lions not understanding female tigers sexual cues.) or anything whic

    • Re:This could redefine the term species (Score:5, Funny)

      by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @10:34AM (#25120239) Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by R2.0 ( 532027 )

        "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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PJ1216 ( 1063738 ) *

      begs the question

      I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by hobbit ( 5915 )

        I do not think that language works the way you think it works.

      • I scrolled down expecting this response from someone. I knew it would come. It's inevitable. Congratulations on being "that guy" that has to point out the fact that someone used "begs the question" in the wrong context. Which begs the question... Who fucking cares?

    • No, no it doesn't. Even ignoring the fact that you're misusing "beg the question", this issue is already pretty much shot by evolution. Exactly how do you define a species? A population that can interbreed?

      Fine, lets define three populations, "A" "B" and "C" where all members of groups "A" are the same species by this definition, and all members of group "B" are the same species, and all members of group "C" are the same species, but members of group "A" and "C" aren't the same species. Now consider tha

  • 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 ;)

    • Well not to worry. Without the spice they really can't do much.

      Now can anyone explain why I keep having these dreams about President Barack Obama sending a mission to Mars?

  • are these same scientists trying to bring back the brick phone or black & white TV?

    What is the point of this?

    • Too late, we already have the modern-day brick phone [google.com].

    • The point? I'm going to guess that there are a few people that just simply would like to see these giant tortoises swimming around again. There are probably some people that would like to say "see, evolution DOES work"

      There have been some hints that traits of those who survived past plagues could be used similarly, not through eugenics, but through gene therapy to improve mankind's overall situation with regard to retroviruses. Any experimentation in this regard could one day help to better mankind or repop

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ksheff ( 2406 )
        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.

  • Very Cool (Score:4, Funny)

    by FatSean ( 18753 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @10:29AM (#25120157) Homepage Journal

    I want my own giant tortoise for a pet!

  • 100 years and how much money to bring back an extinct turtle? I just hope I'm around in 100 years for the great turtle project centennial unveiling. Of coure, they ARE turtles, did you think this would happen quickly?

  • Playing God! (Score:4, Funny)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @10:39AM (#25120329) Homepage
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lilomar ( 1072448 )

      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!

    • You imagine incorrectly. No such idea even faintly presented itself in my head. I don't see anything wrong with Animal breeding programs with a specific outcome and I am very religious. I think you just took an article about tortoises and turned it into a sacrilegious rant in which you pinned up your strawman you created yourself.
      • And of course, the previous poster was referring to you personally.

        Why not? Everybody else does.
      • I'm pretty religious myself. I just believe you either fess up to picking and choosing which things you consider "playing God", or you throw the baby out with the bathwater and go become a monk. I find bringing Mastodons and Turtles back through genetic manipulation no different than selective breeding, something is gone that Man wiped out - and we want it back. Let me get my strawman out, Euthanasia is altering the time at which God chose your death, while Shock paddles do precisely that - in both cases

      • It's also worth pointing out that animal husbandry, which is what they're talking about, is something we've been doing for a very long time.

        • Not that I have a problem with either (or those who choose to do so), but distillation and prostitution have been around for quite a while too. Some religions frown upon them.

    • Wouldn't charges of "Playing Darwin" or "Unnatural Selection" be more apropos?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kat_skan ( 5219 )

      I just can't see "Giant Tortoises go on rampage", unless they have jet packs and live in Tokyo.

      Oh, they can still rampage. It's just hard to notice since you can rebuild things as quickly as they can destroy them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tuffy ( 10202 )

      I just can't see "Giant Tortoises go on rampage"

      Everybody, walk for your lives!

    • Velociraptors are really just ankle-biters. Think of the little green poison shits in Deus Ex.

  • hold it ... Geochelone elephantopus is NOT extinct (Score:5, Informative)

    by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @10:44AM (#25120413)
    gct says [gct.org] 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.
  • But the long intervals between generations mean that even if the project does start,
    it will not be concluding any time soon. A century ahead would be a fair bet.

    ..it's usually fruit flies with them biologists. Sounds like a tight schedule, they better get a move on.

  • Species definition and Galapagos restoration (Score:3, Informative)

    by wagr ( 1070120 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @11:49AM (#25121557)

    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/ [galapagos.org] or look up "Lonesome George."

  • Bear with me as I go a bit abstract, but /. is for nerds, right? Organisms are a kind of fixed point. a zygote with genome G implanted in an organism with womb (or egg, or, more generally, an environment of some sort) W gives rise to some organism O. O = f(G,W) where f is the 'development' function. But W is itself a function of the organism. So we really have O = f(G,W(O)). O is a fixed point of the function \x -> f(G,W(x)). But it's not at all clear this equation has unique solutions.

    Just so you know I

  • how exactly do you get an extinct animal back by interbreeding its modern day ancestors, clearly you aren't going to get the exact same traits?

    • My take is they're not looking for the exact same traits as that would be a humongous task. I figure we do something like this:

      1. Breed 2 giant turtles
      2. Compare resultant DNA to control sample (I.E. the giant turtle fossil DNA
      3. If resultant DNA is closer to similarity in DNA to giant turtle than anything else before it, breed again according to step 1.
      4. Else, cull from supply
      5. Rinse and repeat until we're a certain benchmark of the way there (say 99.9% as the stated goal) to creating an old giant fossilized turt
  • A successful example is this one, to "re-create" a quagga -- part zebra/part horse that went extinct in 1883. http://www.quaggaproject.org/ [quaggaproject.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close