Talk:De-extinction

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the De-extinction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Extinction High‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal De-extinction is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

Aka "resurrection biology"? Is that a common term? It's used by the Guardian. Malick78 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tonimartorano.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about de-extinction of plants?

I'm surprised there is no mention of plants in this article. It might be easier than with animals and could be useful for pharmacology. Aren't there any scientist working on that at all?--Grondilu (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a late response on my part, I second this line of questioning being addressed. Specifically, the Judean date palm is mentioned as having been formerly extinct, but a specimen of this plant is currently alive in Israel. Shouldn't this at least be discussed in the article, if for no other reason as to discuss why it doesn't specifically warrant inclusion as a de-extincted species? ihatefile007 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing back other animals

They can bring back the Great auk, Labrador duck and a few other animals.

Cloning

The second sentence of the first paragraph in this section seems to indicate that woolly mammoth as well as the passenger pigeon would have the Band-tailed pigeons as surrogate parents.

68.90.109.178 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Jeff[reply]

Who could be benefited from De-extinction technology??

2604:6000:1520:202C:F434:83E8:96FB:91C (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Opposition', I added a paragraph of a benefit to de-extinction. Let me know if this helps!--Maddieaalund (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on De-extinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ts-day/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De-extinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006110831/http://rare.longnow.org/projects.html to http://rare.longnow.org/projects.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other homo sapiense

Is it part of this article De-extinction of neandertalian, tasmanian, canarian peoples?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smilodons

Why aren't any of you going to add smilodons into this page? :(

72.223.14.230 (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone tries to clone them NatureEnjoyer123 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal Biosciences, the same group mentioned a lot on this page has expressed interest in them as a future potential candidate species. However, I have little faith that they will ever get around to them due to how different they are from current day big cats in addition to lack of preserved specimens. At least they have "references" for their three current species in the forms of the Asian elephant, fat-tailed dunnart, and Nicobar pigeon. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on De-extinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needing more detail of practices

I have not edited this article, yet I do believe some additions should be made. When stating the practices of cloning and CRISPR/Cas9, a deeper explanation should be provided. Adding more graphics could help this as well. The woolly mammoth section should either be condensed or more citations should be added. A few other minor additions can be added to support the science behind the de-extinction process. Also, this article can include more species this could benefit and how the de-extinction process can benefit Evolutionary Biology research.

Tonimartorano (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Toni[reply]

Iterative evolution

When it happens, is it two species or the same one? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please update with: "Probing the genomic limits of de-extinction in the Christmas Island rat"

Could you please update this article with some brief on this study (maybe a few words could also be added to Revival of the woolly mammoth or Woolly mammoth#Revival of the species)? It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:

Scientists demonstrate limits and the scale of challenge of genetic-editing-based de-extinction, suggesting resources spent on more comprehensive de-extinction such as of the woolly mammoth may currently not be well allocated and substantially limited.^[1]^[2]

The info in section "#Maclear's Rat" is missing a reference to the study and key findings from the study in relation to de-extinction of that rat.

Moreover, the main results from the study seem to be relevant to de-extinction in general so another section could have very brief info on the limits they found. From the study (this is also highlighted in the news reports):

Our analyses show that even when the extremely high-quality Norway brown rat (R. norvegicus) is used as a reference, nearly 5% of the genome sequence is unrecoverable, with 1,661 genes recovered at lower than 90% completeness, and 26 completely absent. Furthermore, we find the distribution of regions affected is not random, but for example, if 90% completeness is used as the cutoff, genes related to immune response and olfaction are excessively affected.
[...]
a reconstructed Christmas Island rat would lack attributes likely critical to surviving in its natural or natural-like environment.

References

^ Ahmed, Issam. "Forget mammoths, study shows how to resurrect Christmas Island rats". phys.org. Retrieved 19 April 2022.
^ Lin, Jianqing; Duchêne, David; Carøe, Christian; Smith, Oliver; Ciucani, Marta Maria; Niemann, Jonas; Richmond, Douglas; Greenwood, Alex D.; MacPhee, Ross; Zhang, Guojie; Gopalakrishnan, Shyam; Gilbert, M. Thomas P. (11 April 2022). "Probing the genomic limits of de-extinction in the Christmas Island rat". Current Biology. 32 (7): 1650–1656.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.02.027. ISSN 0960-9822.

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacine

Information of the last thylacine comes from unreliable source NatureEnjoyer123 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AprilDiamond18 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gevanosk.

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates regarding the Passenger Pigeon revival?

It is close to the end of 2024, and to my knowledge, there have been no significant updates regarding this project since 2018. The linked source on the Passenger Pigeon section leads to a dead page and redirects to the home page of Revive & Restore. I understand that this is a long process, but I think that we should find a new source regarding a time window or remove this outdated source. [1]http://longnow.org/revive/what-we-do/passenger-pigeon// Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point, thanks. Can you ping me later next week so I can have a look at it? :) cyclopia ^speak! 06:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[https://reviverestore.org/projects/the-great-passenger-pigeon-comeback/progress-to-date This could be used as a new source regarding the project by Revive & Restore. The last update was in 2019 with no new information regarding a completion window. Late 2024 to early 2025 is still the estimated window. I also found information regarding a Heath Hen revival that has been in the works since 2014 on their website, but there is no estimated completion window like the Passenger Pigeon project. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to update the page with a new source for the passenger pigeon section leading to the progress to date page of The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback and I added heath hen to the current candidates list due to ongoing efforts and progress by Revive & Restore. I also changed the 2024 passenger pigeon date to 2025. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maniraptoras?

Jack Horner, the writer of the book How to Build a Dinosaur has been pursuing a project for the past 10 years to revive a species of Maniraptora through gene editing of domesticated chickens. However, there have not been any updates to this project since 2015 to my knowledge, can they be listed here as current or future potential candidates due to this project? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly two months later, Chickenosaurus does not count as a de-extinction in my eyes. Since it is not an officially recognised or previously extant species unlike all of the other Holocene and Pleistocene critically endangered or extinct species on this page. Horner even stated in an interview that it will still be a chicken. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Future potential candidates" section is problematic

Many entries in this list are poorly sourced -e.g. this edit added several species from a clickbaity list that does not seem to reflect academic or industry sources for many entries; the editor themselves admit so in the edit summary. In general I am at unease with the idea of "future potential candidates" in this article: either a species is a candidate, so there is a definite project or at least some talk of it, or almost every extinct species with a sequenced/sequenceable genome is theoretically a "future potential candidate". I would go along and trim the list soon, either moving species to actual candidate status or removing them altogether. cyclopia ^speak! 08:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones should be removed? I understand removing the Times of India source to presenting itself more as a wish list or hypothetical than one actually based in plausibility and conservation. I have seen similar sources list outrageous candidates and HIGHLY improbable species like megalodon, neanderthal, and Spinosaurus.

To my knowledge, the future potential candidates section has always been a part of this article, as species like great auk, elephant bird, woolly rhinoceros, and steppe bison have been considered for decades, but no actual project has started yet due to lack of funding or resources. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore species such as the great auk etc. are not candidates, just the subject of wishful thinking. As such I don't see how they deserve a whole section. A few sentences about species that have been considered would be enough. cyclopia ^speak! 15:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the section should stay, but better sources are required. I can put an invisible note stating that one must provide a high-qaulity source for their entry in order to prevent outrageous claims like Titanoboa and Velociraptors backed by tabloid-like sources. I think that the Colossal and Revive & Restore species should stay, but entries like baiji, tarpan, the Times of India entries, and maybe vaquita can be removed.

There is no current interest in using de-extinction technologies to conserve the possible small population of baijis left, the Times of India entries fall under tabloid journalism, and there are no backbreeding projects for the tarpan like aurochs and quagga to my knowledge. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree in general we need more solid sources. :) I am personally troubled by the concept of "potential future candidate" itself however, because it is very vague. Almost every sequenced species is a potential candidate. What one can say is, some of these species have been discussed as candidates. Perhaps a more accurate wording is "Further species considered for de-extinction", thus emphasizing they have been actually considered by someone and they're not simply "potential"; but it sounds a bit clumsy. Better options welcome! cyclopia ^speak! 20:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article to reflect this talk page discussion. I agree that any recently extinct species whose genome can be sequenced or has an already sequenced genome could be a "future potential candidate", such as North African or Madagascar megafauna. However, there is no current interest in reviving and rewilding either, so they wouldn't be appropriate for this page.

I also put an invisible note regarding that Chickenosaurus or any other "dinosaur" that is a reverse genetically engineered flightless bird are not de-extinctions. Thus, are inappropriate for this article. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dire wolf resurrected?

I saw recently that scientists working for a company called Colossal Biosciences have claimed to have resurrected the Dire wolf by editing the genes of a gray wolf to have traits almost identical to the trait the Dire wolf had, resulting in the births of three "Dire wolves" named Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi. Though to me this does not seem like a true 100% resurrected I think it is close and certainly worth a mention. PharaohCrab (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth a mention of course but despite Colossal claims we are VERY far from a de-extinction. It's just basically a gray wolf with some quirky engineered mutations. I would be very careful in covering it. cyclopia ^speak! 12:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the definition of de-extinction does apply here. Colossal's dire wolves are not exact clones of the extinct dire wolf, they are made to be similar using dire wolf genes though, and the definiton of de-extinction does say "similar to", functionally and in appearance. That is what is needed to restore ecosystem functionality, not necessarily a 100% exact genetic match... So for all intents and purposes, these dire wolves could fill the niche of the extinct dire wolf (the remaining question is merely ethical: "Is there even a niche to be filled since grey wolves already fill it?") 146.232.65.129 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all experts I've seen around (except, well, Colossal ones) disagree. The reason is simple: they are not similar "functionally and in appearance", no more than any other common wolf at least. They are somehow bigger than a standard wolf and have a whitish fur, that's practically it. No genes involved in behaviour for example have been changed (well, basically because we do not know what they would be). Painting a wolf white and making it a bit bigger does not make a direwolf, no more than making a chicken bigger and with teeth makes a tyrannosaur. cyclopia ^speak! 14:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dire wolf

Section on dire wolf added for likely vandalism(or at least not following NPOV); I rewrote it to comply with WP:NPOV. I believe it should also be moved to "Current candidate species for de-extinction" instead of under "Successful de-extinctions". Accruenewblue (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. cyclopia ^speak! 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good, unfortunately when there are hyperbolic media anouncements there also these problems. Barjimoa (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the "reception" section regarding the current scepticism around the project, as all of that information is discussed in detail on the main article for the topic. I also put an invisible note regarding the current situation. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One question, probably rather philosophical, is whether de-extinction can only be considered successful when an extinct species has been re-introduced into the wild. This is probably not necessary, but often the definition of an extinct species is "extinct in the wild". So dire wolves remain extinct in the wild. However, see my comment above on whether this can be considered de-extinction or not. 146.232.65.129 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should Pyrenean ibex remain in the current candidates section?

To my knowledge, there are no ongoing projects to attempt to revive or recreate the subspecies again. Both the cited BBC and La Vanguardia articles states that the CITA only wanted to verify if Celia's frozen cells were still viable 14 years later (at the time of the 2013 article). So, should it be moved to the further species considered section, or a "Previous species attempted for de-extinction" section? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ahmed, Issam. "Forget mammoths, study shows how to resurrect Christmas Island rats". phys.org. Retrieved 19 April 2022.

[2] Lin, Jianqing; Duchêne, David; Carøe, Christian; Smith, Oliver; Ciucani, Marta Maria; Niemann, Jonas; Richmond, Douglas; Greenwood, Alex D.; MacPhee, Ross; Zhang, Guojie; Gopalakrishnan, Shyam; Gilbert, M. Thomas P. (11 April 2022). "Probing the genomic limits of de-extinction in the Christmas Island rat". Current Biology. 32 (7): 1650–1656.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.02.027. ISSN 0960-9822.

[1]

[2]