Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Coming Back Soon... The Tasmanian Tiger? 206

Posted by chrisd from the sheep-clones-are-for-losers dept.
adoll writes: "Melbourne's The Age is reporting that DNA has been extracted from a 110 year old Tasmanian tiger (thylacine) bone. Scientists are now wondering if genes can be implanted into eggs of an existing species and born to surrogate mothers (numbat and Tasmanian devil are mentioned as possible hosts). The last tiger died in Hobart, Tasmania on September 9, 1936. It was believed the tigers were hunted to extinction (CD: Thems was good eatin) on Tasmania, but unconfirmed sighting have persisted to this day".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Coming Back Soon... The Tasmanian Tiger? More

Coming Back Soon... The Tasmanian Tiger?

Comments Filter:

  • Breeding Population of ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dyolf Knip ( 165446 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @04:16AM (#2609477) Homepage
    One? It's great to bring back an extinct species, but it kinda sucks if there's only one of them.
    • If you read the article, they've got three DNA samples from different specimens.
      • That isn't nearly enough.

        To maintain genetic diversity, you need probably 1000+ members of a species. You could get by with a few hundred, but it would be hard.

        The problem is that each animal carries multiple recessive genes that are lethal (as do most humans, about 8 per person). Once you get serious inbreeding a few generations down the track, you get seriously high numbers of these recessives coming back to bite you.

        Three won't work. Not in the long run, unless you keep on cloning them.

        Michael

        • As long as we're talking about a captive breeding program, I dont see the problem. Just eliminate the offspring that have reinforced bad traits and breed the ones that don't.

          Inbreeding is really only a problem when you either can't really do culling (like with people) or breeding isn't controlled and the damaged offspring can continue to breed.

          A general lack of diversity can be a problem, but I don't think it's insurmountable.

      • But how much DNA did they manage to extract? Scientists have managed to extract DNA from dinosaur bones, but only in minute quantities. It doesn't matter that they have DNA from three different speciments if the sequences aren't complete. Unfortuantly the article doesn't seem to mention how much DNA they extracted.

  • Genes aren't the only thing. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MsWillow ( 17812 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @04:19AM (#2609479) Homepage Journal
    OK, they implant the genes into a new cell, and hope it turns into the critter. However, that's utterly ignoring the mitochondrial DNA, which also makes the animal unique. Unless they have that, *and* remove all the mitochondrial DNA from the new cell, what they'll get is an erzatz animal, one that may or may not be close enough to the original to give the desired results.

    This is the same reason why, even though frozen Wooly Mammoths can be found in Siberia, they have yet to make a new living mammoth. Jurassic Park totally ignored this whole point, which, to me, made the whole premise rather lame :(
    • mitochondrial DNA is less subject to variation as chromosonal, as any changes would have to be as a result of error-based mutation instead of recombination. If the speciation of the "Tasmanian" marsupials occured fairly recently in time, a suitably close surrogate "mother" should be found.

    • Re:Genes aren't the only thing. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      that's utterly ignoring the mitochondrial DNA

      They're also ignoring the isotopic ratios, quantum phase, electro-magnetic field, and neutrino flux of a living Tasmanian tiger cell! You're right, there's no way this can work!
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • They are still awfully far from home. Consider this:

      step 1 (done): Obtain the DNA (from 3 different talisman tigers)
      step 2 (to do):construct a genetic library, genome sequencing
      step 3 (to do): reconstruct the chromosomes

      step 4 (to do): Find a suitable cell, start dolly-like cloning process (which is still not a solved problem). For the tiger, hink about deciphering a text in binary form without the proper ascii table, and without knowledge of the fileformat.

      step 5 (to do): Think about ethical Consequences.
      -- Said Dr Firestone: "Then we will have the moral, social
      -- and ethical problems. If we can actually bring something
      -- back, wouldn't that be fantastic?
      Not really on their agenda, and rightfully so. They woun't be playing god for a long time.
    • Someone's been playing too much Parasite Eve...

    • Re:Genes aren't the only thing. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkZero ( 516460 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @08:41AM (#2609805)

      Jurassic Park totally ignored this whole point, which, to me, made the whole premise rather lame

      Actually, Jurassic Park didn't ignore that at all. They mentioned that the dinosaurs' DNA had to be genetically spliced with the DNA of a specific frog that offered the chance to fill in the needed pieces of DNA that were missing in the dinosaurs, but also posed little threat of creating a pygmy dinosaur-frog hybrid, as if the two animals had been cross bred. One of the major plot points of the book and the movie was the presence of certain frog traits in the resulting dinosaurs, specifically the frog's ability to change its gender for breeding on the fly, allowing some of the dinosaurs to become male, mate with the dinosaurs that remained female (they were all intended to be female), and create fertile eggs.

      And for similar people that will say, "But it's impossible to do that!", please note that Jurassic Park is a piece of science FICTION, not science FACT, and thus has the benefit of future technology and scientific discoveries that do not exist in real life. Personally, I think saying that Jurassic Park "ignored that point" (that "point" being the impossibility of the entire thing using current technology and scientific discoveries) is a nitpick to begin with, because it basically labels all science fiction stories "lame" because they don't use currently existing technology.

      I suggest you look up both Science Fiction [dictionary.com] and more specifically the FICTION [dictionary.com] part of the term that you are having problems with.

      • The "point" that the above poster was saying Jurrasic Park missed was the issue of mitochondrial DNA, not holes in the regular DNA being filled in by frog DNA.

        Though I'd have to ask -- just how different is mitochondrial DNA across similar species? Don't all mitochondria do approximately the same thing?
      • A good movie or book suspends disbelief. Anything that makes that disbelief harder to suspend is a flaw (although other advantages may outweigh the flaw.)

        Technically, they'd be better using our genes as a fill in, rather than frogs - dinosaurs are more closely related to us than frogs. Chicken DNA would be even better.

        I don't think that mitoconrial DNA is a big issue for the validity of the cloned animal. It does much the same thing in all animals.

        The big problem (I'm talking about real life ressurection of Tazmanian Devils here, not fictional dinosaurs) is getting viable DNA. You need all* of it pretty much 100% error free, which seems quite implausible from a stuffed museum exibit. I don't think this will be possible until we can take many samples, read each one, and merge to get a full good run.

        * All the functional DNA anyhow. Large amounts of DNA is nonfunctional repetitive gunge, more or less "This page intentionally left blank".
        • Sorry about the mixup in species names.

          The current cloning technology is 'take an entire nucleus, put it in an ovum.' If you have no viable nucleus, it won't work. Unless fresh cells were cryogenically frozen and kept on ice ever since, I don't think there will be a viable nucleus.

          We've had similar speculation on this side of the Tasman about resurecting the Huia (a bird, last seen alive c1906) but I don't rate the chances of this any higher.

          Disclaimer: My training is in astronomy, not biology, so none of this is authoratative.
    • Jurassic Park totally ignored this whole point, which, to me, made the whole premise rather lame :(

      I think that was among the least of Jurassic Park's problem, either from the point of view of biology or from the point of view of cinematography.

    • Agree completely. It's also more than just mitochondrial DNA -- there are other specific organelles as well as cyclin/cdk complexes that may well be specific to the Tasmanian Tiger.

      I'm just guessing here, but although cyclin/cdks are evolutionarily conserved from yeast to human, I would believe that there is also still more than enough specificity to make actual regeneration of anything resembling a Tasmanian Tiger quite difficult.

      Another issue would be 'maternal genes,' which are genes where the genotype of the gene is held in the mother, but expressed as proteins deposited in her offspring. Given that there would not be the exact 'maternal genes' available for a Tasmanian Tiger, this might also prove to be a problem, I would think.

  • Good Eating? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gizmoiscariot ( 442386 )
    Lets hope if they do decide to bring them back, they decide also to make it illegal to hunt. Otherwise you mine as well just be making them to eat. And that would not be bringing back a species that was killed by us. That would just be bringing back the Tasmanian buffet.
    Also what happened to Natural Selection? Even if they are a great species, lets not try to recreate Jurassic Park by bringing back things that are dead. I say leave nature alone and use that money towards saving us from falling into the dead species category.

    • Re:Good Eating? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by base2op ( 226729 )
      I say leave nature alone...

      Are humans not natural? Are not the things we create naturual? (Would not you consider the damns created by beavers natural?) Bringing back the dead should be considered naturual because we (of nature) would be the ones doing it. However, if this backfires (somehow) and we end up dooming ourselves (*gasp*) that would be natural too.

      • Re:Good Eating? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Antity-H ( 535635 )
        Are not the things we create naturual? (Would not you consider the damns created by beavers natural?) no, most of what we create is not natural, on the contrary to what animals create, animals create no more than needed to satify their needs, and everything they create is integrated into the natural environnement and contributes to the ecosystem diversity.

        on the contrary human creates more than he needs, and even creates virtual needs so he can justify creating even more, i don't say art is wrong (though it is most unnatural), nor that i don't like having a chilled coke, but what i say is that these things are definitely not natural. It often takes years after a new product is introduced to take in account its effects on our environnement and even then it takes years before negativ effects are reduced to an acceptable level.
        take chemicals, cars, nuclear wastes... all made from natural materials and combined in unnatural ways to fit our purposes, becoming dangerous for the environnement. I do say we should be more careful of our environnement which would avoid having to use money to prevent us from fallin in the extinct species category, i don't say we must abandon all technology, just that we must use our knowledge to have it both ways (and i am sure it can be done)

        • Re:Good Eating? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by spongman ( 182339 )
          who is to say that these things are not what we need? arguably homo sapiens is a unique beast. why should such a beast not have unique needs.

          I would argue that things unnatural do not exist. What is the difference between 'unnatural' and 'supernatural'?

          • >I would argue that things unnatural do not exist.
            That depends on the way you understand the word natural.
            If natural means, a product of nature, then of course unnatural things would not exist. But then the existence of the word natural wouldn't make sense as the word darkness wouldn't make sense if there were no light.

            I'd say, it's the very same difference between an human being and an animal. Sentience, reason and understanding. It's an metaphysical distinction.

            Natural is something that comes without consciousness.
            A human isn't unnatural in itself. His education and decisions makes him so.
            But don't get me wrong. Unnatural doesn't mean bad. All culture is unnatural as it is a product of thought.

            On what humans need depend on the way how consider humans. If you ask, what a human needs naturally, you have to ask what does the beast "human" need. That surely doesn't include TV, computer, Internet.
            But if you ask what does the intellectual beeing "human" as part of the unnatural construct civilisation need, it may include those things.
            But this is a concious decision. And conciousness includes the disctinction between good and bad, and right and wrong.
            • evolution is continual. there's no point in time when two non-humans gave birth to a human. there's no distinction. maybe now it's easy to make one, but history proves it to be false. you can point to differences, but i could point to differences between a chimpanzee and a fish - irrelevant. there's no reason to think that the Internet isn't just a natural progression of the evolution of life on this planet. After all, it's just blobs of goo communicating with each other...
    • Lets hope if they do decide to bring them back, they decide also to make it illegal to hunt. Otherwise you mine (sic) as well just be making them to eat.

      OK, despite what you might read on /., thems was NOT good eatin' (think marsupial dog). They were a preditor, and preditors are vermin, right?! Well no, we might not think so, but the C19th European settler was not so enlightened.

      From the article,
      The Tasmanian tiger was Australia's largest carnivorous marsupial before it was hunted into extinction, mostly by farmers who thought it was a threat to livestock.

  • What about the moral dilemma surrounding these actions?

    What if something went wrong while reviving the species? DNA being modified during the cloning progress to name an example.

    We would be literally playing god. The species died off because nature intended it to( even if it was hunted to death we are still a part of a larger cycle)

    And if we could do it for this species, itd open up the possibility for other, less desireable species to be recreated.

    I think we should think this through before throwing our technology around reviving extinct species.

    • Re:Moral dilemma (Score:2, Insightful)

      by varaani ( 77889 )
      We would be literally playing god. The species died off because nature intended it to( even if it was hunted to death we are still a part of a larger cycle)

      Huh? If we kill off a species, we're just a part of the nature. If we try to revive it (by whatever means), we're suddenly playing god. Where's the logic? I can't see any difference between killing and reviving in this respect. In either case we're stirring the balance in the ecosystem, which is bad for our own survival as a species.

      We're a part of the nature, and the nature does not intend anything. Our actions cannot be justified simply as "evolution in action".
    • We would be literally playing god

      If you consider organ transplants, cosmetic surgery, et al, we've been playing god for ages. Would you make the same argument if you were in dire need of a heart, kidney, liver?

      ----

      [McP]KAAOS

      Of course not, he's twice your size, he'd never fit into your clothes. Think before you say these things, Mitch.

    • Re:Moral dilemma (Score:2, Funny)

      by khuber ( 5664 )
      Do you eat produce?

      Wouldn't "literally" playing god involve things like creating solar systems? Now that would kick ass. Then we could start breeding a planet of beautiful blonde chicks. THEN, because they'd think us geeks and nerds were the only males, we could like, you know, do stuff.

      -Kevin

    • Personally, I don't give a crap about any gods, so I'm not worried about "playing god". After all, it's what people do. We modify our environment ot suit our needs, rather than just putting up with it, and we're getting better at it.
    • Everytime you switch on an airconditioner you are "playing god".

      Everytime you switch on your light at night, you are "playing god".

      Everytime you take anti-biotics your "playing god".

      However i do agree with you, we should stop "playing god".

  • Founder Effect is a possible problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Buran ( 150348 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @04:30AM (#2609498)
    The founder effect, which is the sharp reduction in the genetic variety of a population when it arises from a very small group of individuals (Iceland is an excellent example), has a great potential to be a problem here. The cheetah, for example, went through a bottleneck at some point in the past (no one knows why). Individual cheetahs are so genetically similar that organs (such as skin) can be transplanted between individuals with little or no rejection.

    Unless samples from multiple thylacines can be retrieved and successfully used to clone infants, these animals will always be sucsceptible to being wiped out by a plague (since they all have the same genotype.)

    And that's to say nothing of the issues with captive-raised animals that have none of the instincts that their wild counterparts would. For example, falcons that have imprinted on humans (and think they're human as a result) cannot be released into the wild -- it would be disastrous. They would never fear humans and would be unable to hunt to feed themselves.

  • impossible.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by crazney ( 194622 )
    The australian TV show, "the science program", described this idea as complete and utter rubish last night.

    They say that with current technology the scientists are "dreaming" to think such a thing as possible, and anytime in the near future.

    I would love this to be possible, but i am very very doubtful..

    anyway, a dodo bird would be alot nicer to re-create :)
    • anyway, a dodo bird would be alot nicer to re-create :)


      And they taste better.

      Dodo birds and mamoths. Tasty treats.

      • Contrary to assumptions (and an episode of "The Goodies"), from all reports the dodo wasn't particularly tasty. "Hard, rubbery flesh" or something like it was the verdict apparently.
        • it may not have been tasty, but it was damn easy to catch..

          all sailors had to do was "hit a piece of wood against a tree" and tens of dodo birds would come flocking to see what the noise was all about.. why?
          because the noise of hitting a piece of wood against a tree was the same as the calling noise of a dodo bird..

          the other thing was that they were so friendly and not scared at all.. a sailor could pick it up without it running away at all..

          thats a damn easy meel!

  • Is it really extinct? (Score:3, Informative)

    by m_evanchik ( 398143 ) <michel_evanchikATevanchik...net> on Sunday November 25, 2001 @04:35AM (#2609510) Homepage
    Then again, there is some debate [virgin.net] over whether the thylacine is truly extinct.
    • The article you mention states that they collected "hair and faecal samples."

      Well, if that's the case, it should be quite easy to determine if the animal isn't extinct by seeing if the DNA contained in the sample they are attempting to clone matches the DNA they can find in these samples collected in the wild.

      There, now where can I pick up my Nobel prize?
    • I recall seeing some nature program and a photographer of rare animals said that some animals may not be extinct because it can be very difficult to find them even in a relatively small wildlife area. For example, he said that he spent a lot of time in a wildlife area in some South Pacific Island merely to photograph a very rare Tiger and it took a long time with a camera that had an automatic triggering mechanism (because he left the camera by itself) to take a picture of the tiger that he was looking for.

      So, it may be that even in Tasmania there still lurks that striped tiger.

    • A man in New York reported seeing Elvis at Broadway and 69th St. The man was only slightly intoxicated, but appeared to have a white powder around his nostrils. Officials believe the source to be reliable and look forward to sightings from other such people.

      In Arizona two elderly ladies told our sources second cousin thrice removed that yesterday they were abducted by three aliens in tutu's and made to dance to the New York Symphony Orchestra's rendition of Tommy, who were reported to be performing live. The New York Symphony representitive could ... er ... not be ... reached for comment.

      In Texas three hillbil^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlocals reported that road kills are down by three percent from last year and appealed to the nation to start "hittn' dem darn critters" for the "sek of der chillin'" They blame the shortage on UFO sightings, and on over hunting of the local populations by Elvis (See Above)

      Yes guys ... its extinct.

      Oh wait ... my bad ... its still alive, we didn't ever go to the moon, and olestra chips didn't really make people shit bricks.
      • Yeah, the source I gave is not exactly a of sterling authority or depth, but there have been examples of animals previously thought extinct to be rediscovered and even large animals to be discovered for the first time in the last 20 years.

        I also wonder how carefully the evidence has been studied of its possible existance. DNA tests are tricky and expensive.

        The poor beast probably is extinct, but Tasmania is a big island.
    • The Tasmanian Devil [tasweb.com.au] is one of the most effective natural garbage disposals on the face of the planet.

      To quote from the above link:
      With its powerful jaws and sharp sectorial teeth, it can consume every part of a dead kangaroo or sheep, including the skull.

      Many people cite the lack of found dead Thylacine bodies (roadkill etc) as proof that they are not around any more. But when a carrion cleaner like the Devil is around, that makes that assumption a little presumptious. It can smell [tasmanian-devils.org] a lot better [reptilepark.com.au] than we can see.

      Not that this is proof that Thylacines are still around, but it is reason to question some "evidence" that they are not.

  • To my opinion extinction is a part of the way of life ... why should life be altered; somebody could get hurt if it gets out of hand!

    I am not only thinking about the tiger but if it gets done with the tiger it can be also done with other species ...

  • Cross-species cloning (Score:2, Informative)

    by Overcoat ( 522810 )
    Cross-species cloning [observerindia.com], the technique they want to use with the Tasmanian tiger, was successfully performed this past January using an endangered bull called a gaur, but that was using a living DNA donor, as opposed to extracting DNA from a century-old bone.

    A tasmanian tiger would be cool, but personally I'd rather see the giant wombats mentioned at the end of the article.

  • how in the hell is this considered controversial? even the sternest luddite would agree that we wiped them out and it is our moral obligation.. NO survival emperitive to replace the species. We wipe out species left and right and expect to not suffer greiviosly as a result? Even if we could wipe out something as terrible as, say influenza, there would be drastic consequences. Even if the only result was longer lifspan for the 6 billion people on the earth ready to procreate 12 billion more. Humans can not live on human biomass alone.... Humans must have other species.
    • When we develop time travel, will it be our moral obligation to right all the wrongs done in history?

      -Kevin

    • > Humans can not live on human biomass alone....

      Yes we can. Or didn't you know the answer to all our problems? Soylent Green!

      SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE!! IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!!!

      Sorry. Someone had to say it...
    • ...it is our moral obligation.. NO survival emperitive to replace the species.


      I thought like this too, until I asked my girlfriend what she thought. She said that in practical terms, we could spend an awful lot more (time, money, take your pick) figuring out how to bring back a single species when the same time/money could save dozens of species we haven't yet made extinct.

      If this grows beyond scientific vapourware, then the question becomes "what industy do we do try now?". Would we ensure that we laboured towards resurrecting species that still have their own habitat in existence, or, perhaps more likely, new types of meat or animal products (I hear a dodo steak sets you back quite a bit in the best restaurants)?
  • In my opnion playing god is just fine as long as you play by his rules. Bringing back an animal that we made the mistake of wiping out in the first place is OK, as it is our way of correcting mistakes of the past. Genetic engineering for the sake of vanity and other sinful motives would not be OK.
  • To me this sounds wrong:
    we kill them off, then we bring them back to life again?
    Sounds like asking for trouble in my opinion, still.. I suppose it is fair to give them another chance, but in the famous words

    "no sir i dont like it"

  • We get to play god again! (Score:3, Troll)

    by burtonator ( 70115 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @04:56AM (#2609548)
    I am very excited about this development.

    Being part of generation-X. I was not born early enough to have participated in the *first* exctinction of the thylacine!

    This way we get to bring it back to life, raise about 1000 of them, and then hunt them into extinction again! YAY!

    And. Since we have moore's law, 18 months from now we will be able to make twice as many tigers for 1/2 the cost!

    Man I love this stuff.

    I want to get one as a pet! I will be getting laid BIG TIME at that point!

    Imagine if you had a beowolf cluster of these things!

    Kevin
  • I admit that I find myself extremely intrigued by the thought being able to reverse the process of extinction with modern technology. However, the more and more that we advance with science and technology the closer that we are to God. At least this is the main ethical and moral arguement that I hear day in and day out. The argument always comes up in discussions of cloning technology, cross breeding, and now the reversal of extincton.

    The possibilities that we find with new technology and science are endless. If this project is successful, it is hard to predict where the following research will go. Perhaps, in bringing back older and older mamals. then what next.... Jurrasic Park?

    It is very exciting to me. Sometimes a bit scary. But none the less, it will be interesting at the very least.

  • moral debate aside, who is willing to believe that this type of research is conducted primarily to allow the richest folks the world contains to become immortal? someone pays someone to find this stuff out... why else would you want to know?


  • Heh, and all you guys laughed at Jurassic Park :P

    SealBeater

  • That'll be great, until the black guy and the fat man on the take get eaten. And then they'll start breeding and develope language skills...
  • Just a thought: More than 90% of the species that ever lived on this planet are dead.
    We didn't kill them. . .
    In this case, we made the species go extinct, so perhaps we have some responsibility to recreate the species, but I'd rather see resources spent on something else like curing diseases, etc.
    • I'd rather see resources spent on something else like curing diseases, etc.

      Dont you understand that that is how they were eradicated in the first place. Too many people, and you want to cure disease so we can cause more extictions... you really dont get it. The only animal that is not under threat of extinction is perhaps the one that needs it most.
    • that's a carlin reference for those that missed it. atrib. your stuff dude. [devry.edu]
  • Regardless of whether this is feasible or not (it most likely is not)....

    I think this whole situation was put most elegantly by a scientist I can't remember =) concerning the gaur (a wild old world cow, one of which had been born from an antelope or some such at a zoo). He said something to the effect of, " I want to save the gaur, the one that walks through the forest, interacts and mates with other gaurs, dies, and has a leak tree grow from it's carcass. That thing out there (the one born at the zoo), is not the gaur I want to save."

  • As many posters wrote before, using current technology it is completely impossible to re-create this kind of animals.

    But even it is possible, what kind of world would it start to live in?

    It would be alone, unless many other pieces of DNA are recovered

    It's natural habitat has dramatically changed -- it's basically not there anymore, would also have to be 're-created'

    But the biggest point: we can't even save other 'trivial' species from extinction, as the 'regular' tiger, many many birds, etc. I think it would be more important, for now, to save what we still have.

    • I was under the understanding that most western tasmania is still untouched wilderness, this would leave heaps of habitat available to them. The wilderness of Tasmania is the reason that many people still believe that there are still live "tassie tigers" in the wild.


      We don't know why the thylacine was killed on the mainland thousands of years before it disapeard from tasmania. The most plausible theory is that the Dingos (introduced domestic dogs) that came with the Aboridginal australians out competed them to extinction. Does this mean that we should consider all of australia as possible re-habitation area's.


      I was under the impression that there are quite a few individual preserved thylacines still in existance. Probably not enough for the genetic diversity needed for full reintroduction of the species, but definatly enough so that we wouldn't just be recreating one animal.


      Lastly I thought the thylacine was hunted to extinction due to the belief they where eating the farmers sheep. I believe the goverment actually had a bounty on there heads. I have never heard before that they where good eating.

  • Ok, i have seen this movie...

    something park , i think....
  • We hunted those things to extinction fair and square. We did it on purpose, and with good reason: They were screwing with our food production.

    Bring back something useful, instead of a pest.

  • If this works maybe we should consider being a little more proactive in collecting DNA samples, there are thousands (millions?) of creatures out there on the verge of being wiped out and even though we might succeed in saving some of them a lot of them are going to go extinct, before that happens maybe we should create a Noah's arc of sorts made up of DNA samples of as many individuals of those specicies in risk as we can before we lose them entirely.

  • Natural selection ? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 )
    Should they really do this ?
    The tasmanian tiger was not fit enough to survive the treat of another more dangerous species.
    This species was the infamous Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
    It is the usual ecologist point of view that men is an evil intruder in the eco system and should stay apart of it whereever possible.
    But this is utter nonsense.
    We are a part of nature. And, yes, we are predators that means that we KILL species. And species which aren't fit enough to avoid this treat will be annihilated.
    But this IS nature. This is not "artificial" or even "bad".
    Some people will no rant "Behold we'll destroy the whole world, the wikked evil ones we are !!!"
    But this is nonsense, too. It's not so easy to destroy the nature. There were worse catastrophes in the history of the world which didn't. These eco-freaks are overrating human power exactly the same way as these tech-gonzo dreaming of terraforming liveless planets etc. do.

    I think this species should be kept dead.
    • we are predators that means that we KILL species. And species which aren't fit enough to avoid this treat will be annihilated.
      But this IS nature. This is not "artificial" or even "bad".

      I am sorry, but you rhetoric is non-sensical and offtopic. So species unable to survive should be left to go extinct? Including those completely evolutionary maladaptations such as dogs, cats, cows, sheep. Without man, they would be long extinct. Hell, without man they wouldnt even exist. And thats what we do - us Homo Sapiens - we meddle. Play with things. Make mistakes (and learn from them). Make discoveries (and learn from them. Play god (and learn from it).
      The example of domesticated animals is not even the start of it. I look out into my garden, and it is a completely unnatural scene. There is no real "wildlife" or "nature" or "natural selection" out there.... Just human selection. It is landscaped, supporting plants and flowers that should be long extinct, and arent even native to this country. In fact, some of the plants are abberitions of nature - hybrids of species from distant corners of the planet, that would never, ever exist in nature.

      These eco-freaks

      Who mentioned eco-freaks?? I thought they were scientists.... meddling as they always do. Maybe something will come of it - certainly we have learnt alot from nature in the last few years: Aerodynamics from Bee flight. Anti-barnicle ship-lining from dolphins. Medicines from deadly plants ("pharming"). Who knows what we may learn from the expereince of bringing back species from the dead?

      Yes, you may ask why bring back the tasmanian tiger? I guess it is the same answer to why we are so protective of giant panders (oooh they are so cute - da Kids really love 'em). I guess it is also the same answer to the question of why, where i live, the cute little doormouse is a protected species but the black rat isnt - despite the fact there are less Black rats.

      Its called Human Selection, and there aint anything natural about it. I guess we are god on this planet, and we certainly act like it. Lets not start pretending we are really a part of the Darwinian sytle Natural Selection.
      • No, animal which survive because we like/need/use them survive because they found a comfortable niche to survive (being liked/needed/used by humans).
        Your viewpoint is the typical ecologist side: humans as surperior/non natural/godlike beings.
        But this IS nonsense.
        The examples of domestic animals are really some kind of symbiotic/parasitic (hark, all dogs are parasites :) behavoir. It's more complicated - because we are a really complicated species. But it is nothing non natural.
        There are ANTS in the Amazonas region which domesticated a certain sort of fungi to create food from leaves. Are ANTS non natural, godlike, super beings ?
        You might now argue that we a different because of our mind, but what makes a mind really non natural. Why should it make us artifical ? And if we are really these Homo Sapians why do we like that panda. The is NO logical reason for this. They are cute - because they trigger certain perception shemes in our mind, initially used for nursing children etc.
        You would argue, too, that we have in fact changed the face of this world. This is true, indeed. But plants have changed to face of this world, too. They have changed to atmosphere far more than any human CO2 pollution will achive. So are plants superior, over natural beings ?

        And why should we recreate this tiger ?
        Could YOU tell a Tasmanian tiger from an Indian one ?
        Would it look really different for humans ?
        No, this is just a waste of resources.
        I might a perhaps a good cloning/gene manipulation test, but that's all.
        • Hey, there are ants all over the world (and the plants in my back garden), who farm aphids like cows, right down to "milking" them, and herding them from place to place. I haven't observed them engaged in selective aphid breeding programmes, like humans eventually stated doing to cows, but it's probably only a matter of time :-).
        • >And why should we recreate this tiger ?
          >Could YOU tell a Tasmanian tiger from an Indian >one ?
          >Would it look really different for humans ?
          >No, this is just a waste of resources.

          Actually I could, and so could you. If you knew what you where talking about, you would realize that a Tasmanian tiger has almost nothing in common with a tiger from India.
        • There are ANTS in the Amazonas region which domesticated a certain sort of fungi to create food from leaves. Are ANTS non natural, godlike, super beings ?

          No. Ants are still subject to natural selection. They have evolved these stratagies through a Darwinian process, due to the selective advantage. The point I am trying to make is that we humans have evolved beyond a point of conforming to the rules of natural selection, and are now applying our own selection criteria on many aspects of the planet.
          However I do concede that this argument is probably not as trivial as I make it out to be (or your original post made it out to be).


          And why should we recreate this tiger ?
          Good Question. Because we can?

          Could YOU tell a Tasmanian tiger from an Indian one ?
          Yep. You should take a look at the pictures. Looks more like a dog. Anyone actually know about the natural history of this thing? Doesnt look like cat family at all.

          Would it look really different for humans ?
          Yes. See above.

          No, this is just a waste of resources.
          I do agree, it probably is. You could argue that with alot of stuff though. Although this does seem particularly poitless, yes. Also, I really do not beleive for a split second that they will actually achieve what they are saying.

          I might a perhaps a good cloning/gene manipulation test, but that's all.
          Exactly. Thats the point I was originally trying to make. Any potential benifits from this are probably going to come from the process rather than the result.

  • A video clip of a Tasmanian Tiger... (Score:3, Informative)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @05:59AM (#2609632) Homepage Journal
    This Tour of Tasmania: Tasmania Tiger [tased.edu.au] Web page shows the last photograph of this tiger in captivity and a video clip. Both picture and video clip are black and white though. The wide mouth shot amazes me. :)
  • For those of you interested in the history of marsupial carnivores in general, be sure to check out the work of Dr. Steven Wroe, of the School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney.


    He has written several articles (many available online) describing some truly intimidating marsupials from our past including marsupial tigers, wolves, lions and sabre-tooths.

  • Even if the tigers do return, what are we going to do with them? Re-introduce them to the wild and then hunt them again? Slowly develop their habitat until they become extinct for the second time? Or simply place them in zoos as an example of the great return of a noble species? I'm sure everyone is duely impressed with the "Jurassic Park" nature of this venture, but when the options are considered, we are left with the inevitable result.

    It will be a vain attempt at restoring something we destroyed, in a futile struggle to erase our poor decisions. We will feel good and proud because we have cleared our bad name with mother nature. Tazmania will never again become a suitable place for tigers to live: We want to live there, and it's a proven fact that there isn't room for the both of us! And we will achieve nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling for those willing to believe that something useful has been accomplished.

  • Jurassic Park, here we go!!!
  • This is my first first post. Sniff, I am so proud of myself. :)

  • The Tasmanian environmental record (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ynotds ( 318243 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @06:47AM (#2609692) Homepage Journal
    I'm not into conspiracy theories but for those of you who might be:
    • Tasmania has a long history of electing Greens so in 1998 our "major parties" put aside their pretentions of difference and attempted to send the Greens extinct by reducing the number of state poiticians [mu.oz.au].
    • More than fifty years before the last thylacine died in captivity, the last full blood Tasmanian aborigine died [cwo.com], a race that had been isolated from the rest of humanity for more than ten thousand years.
    • Thirty years ago, the Tasmanian environmental movement was galvanised by the ultimately unsuccessful campaign to stop the then all-powerful Hydro Electic Commission from building a dam which would drown the remote and ultimately iconic original Lake Pedder [rankin.com.au]. Proposals to drain the dam and restore the original lake persist.
    • A decade later, a similar campaign against the proposed Gordon below Franklin dam was successful and South West Tasmania gained World Heritage recognition, including the aboriginal art in Fraser Cave [walkabout.com.au] named for our then Prime Minister in an attempt to enhance his environmental awareness.
    • In the last few months it looks as though another predator, the fox [abc.net.au], might be trying to get established in Tasmania. I'm sure I heard a report of some more recent evidence that they may indeed have a breeding population which defies thinking about given today's level of environmental awareness.
    • The Tasmanian government recently retreated from its undertaking to support the outcome of the Tasmania Together process with respect to the unpopular logging of old growth forests [wilderness.org.au] to support huge (by Tasmanian standards earnings from wood chip export.
    • On the other side of Bass Strait, there is growing environmental opposition to the Basslink Project [theage.com.au] to connect the Tasmanian electrical grid to the Australian mainland grid.
    Now I just have to wonder whether the foxes or the politicians will utilise cloning first? My own fondest memory of Tassie was diving with dolphins at Flinders Island, a day I would like to clone.
  • The actual reason that they were hunted out was that they were supposedly killing farmers' sheep, so a bounty was put on them. It was fairly successful that.
  • The Australians hunted the Aboriginals until they were extinct on Tasmania, are they going to re-introduce them too?
  • It's only because this animal is an icon made popular by Warner Bros. would we even do this. Hell I don't see anyone trying to bring back Obus Arenicium. Somehow I expect people think this thing will pop out of a test tube and cutefully say "aragh aragh araghfmmmmmm" true to it's Warner Bros. counterpart.
    • um mate thats the tasmanian DEVIL.
      its a lil carnivore marsupial that actually does squeel like in the cartoon. The tasmanian tiger is a carnivor aswell, but it aint a lil brown puff ball.
  • The Wired [wired.com] ran the story [wired.com] quite some time ago (Sep. 13, 1999). Slashdot had a go [slashdot.org] at it as well.
  • Oh, yes, that's what they all say, ooh, aah... But later there's the running... and the screaming...
    -and-
    Must go faster.
    Stupid question, but if we (species-collective) can't even clone sheep right, what makes us think we can do this? What makes us think we should do this? I say we should stick with sheep. Sheep don't have huge fangs and if they die, then you've got mutton for dinner for the next three weeks. Bonuses all around. Just my opinion.
  • You might have to check me out on this, but I'm pretty sure the Tasmanian Tiger went extinct many thousands of years ago. What they are talking about is the Tasmanian Wolf, which only went extinct in the 20th Century.
  • It may be an interesting undertaking to resurrect a vertebrate species from DNA, but it isn't really about extinction or reversal of extinction.

    It should be sobering to realize that in the time span that this species might be "brought back", many thousands species will likely be going extinct. We could probably save a few of them with the money and media attention expended on this project. Of course, we could save a few of them with the money and attention expended on Harry Potter or Britney Spears.

    That's not to say that this project isn't worthwhile. It is scientifically interesting, and it's a challenge. But if we want to do anything about extinctions, we have to start elsewhere: with ecology and conservation. In fact, bringing back a species without bringing back their habitat is only half the job anyway.

  • OHHHH bugger mate, A Tasmanian Tiger took my baby!
  • As long as the scientists alter the genes somewhat to make the tiger unable to synthesize certain ammino acids. We don't want these things just running around rampant, what with cloning new and all.

  • Thylacine Facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by ChaoticCoyote ( 195677 ) on Sunday November 25, 2001 @10:28AM (#2609936) Homepage

    Thylacines were not hunted as food; they were deliberately exterminated by European immigrants because Thylacines killed domestic sheep.

    For more information on Thylacines, check out this article [tas.gov.au] by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service.

    It wouldn't hurt the Slashdot editors to show a little maturity by researching their flippant comments before making bogus statements. Trying some professional journalism would do wonders for Slashdot's credibility.

  • IF they bring a few back (I think they should), they don't have to live in a zoo. There is enough room on the planet that we can set up a preserve for them and not have to worry about a few sheep getting eaten. Should some escape, the only reason that should allow the killing of the animal is if a human is in real danger. I don't mean, "It's coming right for us, Ned". I mean, "Shoot it, it's got your little girl in it's mouth".

    I think we should bring back as many of these extinct animals as possible, if only to learn a little more about them. If we can't make a breeding pair, we'll at least have a much better idea of what they were like originally. Quality photos would be almost as priceless as the animals. I have no desire to see a bunch of dinasaurs running around eating cows and people, but more recent species would be very interesting.

    All of this crap about "god" is really sad. Letting religion anywhere near science goes against the restraining order. Doesn't anyone watch the Simpsons anymore?

  • Check this site
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/24/spectrum/spec tr um1.html at the Sydney Saturday Herald
    for a better news article, and this website
    http://www.austmus.gov.au/
    at the Australian Museum (where the Thylacine research is taking place) for links on the project. Another factoid: even though the Tasmanians exterminated the Thylacine, its image graces their regional beer, Cascade. Go figure.
  • Greenies keep saying that the environment is changing too quickly for animals to adapt to it, and they're going extinct as a result. Whether this is true or false, why do they keep trying to fund preservation programs like this one, restoring dead species to the Earth.

    I thought biodiversity was one of the things they like to promote. Why don't we spend a few decades splicing together some new animal species, more keenly adapted to the world as it is now. Frogs that love smog, for example, or insects with two heads. Anything the learning-disabled kids of the world can invent.

    If we create as many animal species per day as we lose, then in a few hundred years things will be back to "normal," the ecosystem won't be quite so "damaged," and everyone will be happy.

    Of course, by that point, greenies will most certainly find something else to complain about. Maybe earthshine makes the moon bleach faster. Who knows?

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close