Possible Return of the Tasmanian Tiger

Earth lost a truly unique species when Benjamin, the last known thylacine — commonly called the Tasmanian tiger — died in captivity in early September of 1936. Despite an impressive number of alleged sightings of the animal in the years since, no actual documented examples of the species have been found in the wild for nearly a century. Now, thanks to some incredible advancements in DNA research, some scientists believe we could actually bring the species back from the dead.

A new study published in Nature Ecology and Evolution announces that scientists have finally been able to obtain the complete nuclear genome of the thylacine species, revealing an impressive amount about the creature’s ancestry. According to the study, the dog-like marsupial was only very loosely related to modern day canines, having shared a common ancestor some 160 million years ago. It was an incredibly special animal, and a branch of the evolutionary tree that stood out on its own.

bgr.com...


Pretty cool news. Hope they manage to bring it back.

a reply to: Grik123

Bring back the Dodo while they're at it. I will gladly have a dodo farm / sanctuary. Apparently they tasted good.

I wouldn't be surprised that the Tazzy Tiger is still out there in the wild forests, as there are still parts of Tasmania that probably haven't been seen by white man.
Most of Tazzy is Forest, and the 500,000 Humans on it, live mainly in two cities.

It may amaze people, but even tho the Platypus is a well known creature WorldWide, it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to find, or even see, it in the wild. They are extremely elusive creatures, Very difficult to find and shy around humans. Not to mention they blend with their surroundings.
As Humans, We tend to forget that most animals only bred to maintain population, and live within their surroundings only, as a symbiotic relationship.
They arent everywhere, they dont live in herds, they dont migrate, they dont eat large animals etc etc.....creatures like this are very difficult to find, even tho they may be living right next to you.

Lets hope they dont kill one, just to prove they are still out there.

I watched that William Dafoe movie about the Tasmanian Tiger.

I don't think we should bring back extinct species even if man was stupid.

What we need to do is lay off the animal world.

The real question we should ask ourselves is what's the time limit for bringing things back?

500 years?

5000 years?

50000 years?

originally posted by: Thorneblood
The real question we should ask ourselves is what's the time limit for bringing things back?

500 years?

5000 years?

50000 years?

Do you mean because of the ecological system equalizing after their exit and therefore reintroducing them back into the ecological system could throw it off balance? And perhaps it could throw it off balance so badly that it could cause Irreparable damage to several species instead of just the one?

I think a very thorough analysis of the ecosystem would need to be completed before the reintroduction of a new species. As far as the Tasmanian Tiger, I just happened to watch a TED talk about this very same subject and apparently they did do a brief analysis on its old stomping grounds. They concluded that the ecological system that the Tasmanian Tiger used to roam hasn’t changed much at all if any.

So I don’t think there is some exact number of years that we can go by. We need to consider each case one at a time.

Having heard this before the following should be considered:

It is noble to bring back an extinct species, that the human race exterminated either view deliberately or unintentionally. It is a noble idea, showing the miracles of modern science, however, there are a few things that should also be considered and thought about and usually is never talked about in these kinds of discussions.

The first issue is obviously bringing back the animal, finding a compatible species that can be the surrogate parents to not only carry the species to term but also the matter of ensuring the young lives to adulthood. That in itself is full of problems, as there is the question as to the nature of the animal, how it will react, the instincts all involved.
And then there is the range and ecology that will be required, dietary requirements and how to best protect the species from disappearing once again.
And finally numbers. That is one major point that is never thought or considered, and that is for this species to be brought back and to where it can grow and not die off. Too few numbers and then the species runs into insularity, where there is a lack of skill for survival. A genetic bottle neck, where one can see inbreeding happening causing damage to the animal or worse, deformities and where the young are killed by the parents cause of such. And the various r/K strategy, where the survival of the fittest would come into play.

Then there would have to be people willing to work with the animals and train them to be wild again, having them learn how to hunt and kill for their meals, to rely less and less on humans to feed and care for such.

The question of if we can bring back this species, should also include should we bring back any species. The world has changed since some of the species were last alive and if the ecosystem is not there, or capable of allowing for such to survive, it may be far kinder to let such remain extinct.

However, I would say why can they not take this technology, once it is proven and start working on those species that are endangered and boosting their numbers, getting them where they can go from endangered to thriving and surviving? The ecosystem is still there, and increasing the numbers, would also allow for more of a viable option for a species to survive and continue into the future. I can think of a few species that would benefit from this now that are just barely hanging on.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

While the points you brought up are certainly valid ones, I think there is a little more to it. For example, the Tasmanian tiger was killed off largely because it kept killing farmer's sheep. Sheep had only been in Australia for a little more than a hundred years before they were driven so close to extinction they had to be protected. Are we just dooming the Tasmanian Tiger to a similar fate, or worse?

And what about all the more "recent" losses? How many of the things that lived just 50000 years ago would we like to resurrect and how many should we?

Pygmy mammoths died out around the time of the egyptians....the black rhinos, the american cheetah, the short faced bear, etc etc.

Are we helping them really by bringing any of them back, or are we just making ourselves feel better for killing them off in the first place?

originally posted by: neo96
I watched that William Dafoe movie about the Tasmanian Tiger.

I don't think we should bring back extinct species even if man was stupid.

What we need to do is lay off the animal world.

Yeah I watched that too, I think it was called “the hunter”, not a great movie imho.

But on topic: With genetic tech advancing quickly, we as a society will have to decide if bringing back these lost animals is morally just. If we start bringing back animals that have been gone for 100 years, where do they live? It’s possible that reintroducing them to an environment that has moved on without them could upset the natural balance. Or do they live out there lives in zoos for our amusement and hubris.

The extreme extrapolation of this would be Jurassic Park, but that may not even be possible, more likely we would be creating whole new animals that just resemble dinosaurs.

Still it begs the question, once we have the power, is it our right (or obligation) to use it.

a reply to: Grik123

They dont need to do that, I've seen video of what is very clearly a thylacine walking across a rocky area.

What they do need to do is to protect its habitate like there was a 1,000 tons of pure gold there.