35 ms·
I thing that mammoth is a really poor choice for de-extinction. I would wish to be wrong, but is not a really well matured plan.
by pvaldes 3y ago
I thing that mammoth is a really poor choice for de-extinction. I would wish to be wrong, but is not a really well matured plan.
- atlantic 3y agoHow about the auroch? Its extinction is much more recent, so presumably the available DNA is in much better shape.
- tmtvl 3y agoWhen talking about recency, how about the dodo or great auk?
- atlantic 3y agoI suggested the auroch because it was a keystone species in many European ecosystems up until recently. So it could have a major impact on any rewilding project.
- jbotz 3y agoWhat available DNA? We have some really well-preserved frozen mammoths as DNA sources... frozen aurochs, not so many. Or any, that I know of.
- atlantic 3y agoYes, but DNA has a half-life of around 500 years. So there is a considerable difference between an animal that went extinct in the 1600s, and another 4000 years ago.
- suzzer99 3y agoMegalodon instead?
- anigbrowl 3y agoCharismatic gigafauna I bet a non-negligible portion of their funding comes from people who want to shoot one and have a trophy that few or no others are able to obtain.