Talk:De-extinction

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

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)

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)


 * 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)

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

Who could be benefited from De-extinction technology??
2604:6000:1520:202C:F434:83E8:96FB:91C (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on De-extinction. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add 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 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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

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

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)


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

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023235648/http://www.advancedcell.com/press-release/collaborative-effort-yields-endangered-species-clone to http://www.advancedcell.com/press-release/collaborative-effort-yields-endangered-species-clone
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513035532/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/ to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction

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

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

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

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

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)? 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."

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.

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

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

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture
— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)