Talk:Pleistocene Park

Is this still going on?
I cannot find any recent (within the last year) article on Pleistocene Park. Is this still being created or managed? --Eraticus (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oberond (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)still going on. Last news - 22 September 2010 musk ox calves arrived from Wrangel island


 * Last edit on website now 1 May 2012. As explained in a youtube comments section: ″Well, what you expect. Slow internet connections (via sat), exuberant prices for everything, plus duties of the stuff (either they go to a nearest car dealer, which is c. 2000 km away, or ordering food for summer (c. 1200 km away [...])). Or find any up-to-date web site in 1000 km radius from Cherskiy. It is Siberia. I-phone is as good as paperweight here.″ (Eugene Potapov: Pleistocene Park. Video, 7:11 min., uploaded 21 October 2012. Accessed 23 April 2013 .) --92.206.68.37 (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates
The coordinates are wrong. They point to a place north of Chersky while the text says "south of Chersky".--SibFreak (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any coordinates at all now. Kortoso (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They′re found in the top right hand corner of the article, below the search box. The two articles (″Chersky (settlement)″ and ″Pleistocene Park″) use different systems to show coordinates smaller than whole degrees, which leads to the impression that the P.P. coordinates point to a place north of the Chersky coordinates. The Chersky article uses the traditional minutes and seconds, while the Pleistocene Park article seems to use some sort of decimal system which I hadn't been aware of until now. Clicking on the coordinates leads one to a GeoHack toolserver page where both systems are shown at the very top. Roberta jr. (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC) / 11:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Through usage of ′Infobox park′, this article now also displays the traditional minutes and seconds. Roberta jr. (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Lewis article as reference


After noticing that quite a few of the animals (and especially all the more controversial ones) in the ″Animals″ section are only listed by Martin Lewis (″Pleistocene Park: The Regeneration of the Mammoth Steppe?″, 2012) as ′considered for reintroduction′ but nowhere else, I compared the listed animals in Lewis′ article with those of the Wikipedia ′Pleistocene Park′ article from the same time (see old version of article) and found the lists to be identical. This means it is highly probable that Lewis had taken his information on animals to be introduced from the (unreferenced) Wikipedia article. Using the Lewis article would then constitute a referential circulus vitiosus, that is Wikipedia would be using itself as a reference. I therefore consider those animals as unreferenced and have removed them from the article and added them to the list below. --Roberta jr. (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Animals without references
I have removed the following animals from the article as I could not find references linking them directly to Pleistocene Park. Please only (re)insert them in the article together with a reliable source showing that the species in question is being considered for reintroduction by the Zimovs (the directors of Pleistocene Park and Northeast Science Station). Roberta jr. (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC), last edit 12:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Animals considered or suggested for reintroduction:

Herbivores:
 * Dziggetai or Mongolian wild ass (Equus hemionus hemionus): {Mentioned in Zimov (2005) w/out direct connection to Pleistocene Park.}
 * Kiang (Equus kiang): Largest of the wild asses. Like the Yakutian horse, it grows a thick layer of fat in late summer and fall. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being considered for reintroduction; no reference given.}
 * Dzeren or Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa): {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; no reference given.}
 * Argali (Ovis ammon) or urial (Ovis orientalis vignei): The argali is the largest of the wild sheep. The preferred habitat of both species are gently sloping grassy areas in upland regions, unlike the snow sheep, which is found in rockier terrain. {No reference.}
 * West Caucasian tur (Capra caucasica) or East Caucasian tur (Capra cylindricornis): The Caucasian ibexes occur in gentler and much lower terrain than the other ibex species, especially in areas with little human disturbance. Besides grass and herbs, their diet also comprises leaves, bark, and lichen. {No reference.}

Carnivores:
 * Snow leopard (Panthera uncia): Prefers more open habitats than the Amur leopard. {No reference.}
 * Reintroduction of Spotted Hyena and Amur Leopard to Pleistocene Park mentioned in previous articles and this source (http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/pleistocene-park-the-regeneration-of-the-mammoth-steppe). Both were previous additions of the page. Amur leopards share the same habitat as Amur (Siberian) Tigers (forests in the Primorye region), both are critically endangered, and at the start of the article, were both reputed to live in historic times in northern Siberia. Both would hunt in the shrubs and forests on the edges of the grasslands, though the Amur Leopard can adapt to almost any habitat that provides it with sufficient food and cover (http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/amur_leopard2/). Spotted Hyenas would be introduced as an important primary predator and robust scavenger on the plains. Its largest subspecies (The Cave Hyena) roamed a range that extended to Eastern Siberia (http://www.asu.edu/research/researchmagazine/2003Summer/sum03p34-37.pdf), and todays modern Spotted Hyena would serve as a good proxy. Amur leopards, Siberian Tigers and Spotted Hyena all lived in conditions similar to Pleistocene Park during the Ice Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.68.240.28 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)  {Both spotted hyena and Amur leopard listed only in the Lewis article}
 * Amur leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis): Currently, it is one of the most endangered felines in the world. Believed to have lived in the region until historic times, the reintroduction may save the species. {Listed only in the Lewis article}
 * Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta): The introduction of hyenas would serve as primary predators and robust scavengers on the plains. Its former range was not only almost all of Africa, but went from Spain to the Russian Far East. Its DNA is very similar to the cave hyenas (its larger subspecies) that once roamed the Siberian grasslands, and the current hyena would serve a good proxy. {Listed only in the Lewis article}
 * Asian lion (Panthera leo persica) or Transvaal lion (P. l. krugeri): The introduction of lions to the park is deemed controversial. Asian lions, currently endangered and present only in the Gir forest in India, ranged as far north as Hungary in the early Holocene[1] and are both the northernmost and only subspecies of modern lion to exist out of Africa. However, genetic testing has shown that the cave lions that inhabited northern Eurasia before them were as much related to African as to Asian lions.[2] Transvaal lions might therefore be another candidate on the basis that they sometimes produce leucistic individuals which, while not favored in their native South Africa, might have an advantage hunting in the snowy Siberian winter. [1] http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/archive/files/2009_lions%5B1%5D_b91eb3015e.pdf, [2] http://www.dur.ac.uk/greger.larson/DEADlab/Publications_files/Barnett_MEcavelions.pdf {Asian lion listed only in the Lewis article; no source found for Transvaal lion}

Animals which could be placed in the park in the event of being ′resurrected′ from extinction:


 * Woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) (?): Woolly rhinoceros findings are not as common as mammoths. Only one fully preserved specimen (save for the skin and hooves) was retrieved from a tar pit in 1929 in Starunia, Ukraine (at the time part of Poland). If DNA could be extracted, Sumatran rhinoceros females might be used in the same way elephants are in the mammoth project. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; given reference on the cloning of mammoths mentions neither rhinos nor Pleistocene Park.}
 * Cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea): Studies in DNA show that it is a sub species of the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta crocuta), and one could possibly be resurrected in the future. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; no reference given.}
 * Irish elk or giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus): Despite its appelation neither a moose nor a wapiti. Traces in DNA show its closest relative to be the fallow deer (Genus Dama). Smaller than moose, but with larger antlers.
 * Aurochs (Bos primigenius): Is being bred back at the moment. {Listed in the Russian Wikipedia article on Pleistocene Park as being suitable for reintroduction; no reference given. Unlikely, as not cold-tolerant enough.}
 * Eurasian cave lion (Panthera leo spelaea) {The reference provided only deals with an attempted cloning of the animal; it does not mention Pleistocene Park and any planned reintroduction there.}

Animals which could be made suitable for the (sub)arctic climate through interbreeding:


 * Northern aurochs (Bos primigenius ssp.): As a proxy for the extinct aurochs, Yakutian cattle might be used. While adapted to the far north, this breed is very small, and in many morphological features it does not conform to the extinct aurochs.  This might be remedied by crossing it with one of the several ‘back-bred aurochsen’ that are being created in Europe right now (Taurus cattle, Tauros cattle, Uruz cattle), or by an an introgression of bison genes. {No reference.}
 * Lowland yak (Bos mutus ssp.): The wild yak is presumably generally able to cope with the climate of the far north, but may have trouble with temperatures in the summer and possibly with the low altitudes. These problems could be avoided with an introgression of bison genes. Domestic yak could be used for the basic breeding program (as size would be supplied by the bison), but at least some fertilization with wild yak semen would be preferable. This would bring the number of bovines suited for the tundra-steppe up to three. {No reference.}
 * Tundra zebra (Equus quagga ssp.): Equus quagga, the plains zebra, is highly social and usually forms small family groups which may combine to form large herds. It could be adapted to the climate of the far north through introgression of either kiang genes or Yakutian horse genes. This would be the most challenging breeding project of the three, as in the F1 generation not only all stallions but also the majority of mares will be inferile. The kiang is closer to the zebras both in ancestry and in chromosome count, so the number of fertile F1 mares should be higher, but the horse is closer in its social behaviour. {No reference.}

Permafrost/global warming, etc.  –    topics needing to be added
The following topics need to be integrated in the article:
 * permafrost / global warming issue: megafauna on grass steppe helps keep permafrost intact → prevents carbon and methane from being released → slows down global warming (sources: probably all articles listed in External links and References), – √ --Roberta jr. (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Zimovs arguments against climatic change (increase in temperature and especially in humidity – “Twenty years ago, scientists explained the disappearance of numerous animals in the northern grasslands very simply—the arid steppe climate changed into a humid one, and when the steppe vanished so did the steppe's animals“ Zimov 2005) being reason for megafauna extinction : – √ --Roberta jr. (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * “Similar shifts occurred in previous interglacial periods, yet these did not cause catastrophic landscape reconstructions” (source: Zimov (2005) p. 797), – √ --Roberta jr. (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * musk oxen have been successfully introduced in ″super-humid″ Norway (sources: Zimov (2005) p. 797, Zimov (2007) p.107), – √ --Roberta jr. (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * climate (both temperatures and humidity) in todays northern Siberia similar to Mammoth steppe; radiation aridity ratio for northern Sib. on Mikhail Budyko’s scale is 2 (= steppe bordering on semi-desert) (sources: Zimov (2007) p.108, Zimov (2005) p. 797, Geo Currents (20122), – √ --Roberta jr. (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Roberta jr. (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * “The park is a hub for international scientists and students, who come from around the world to conduct their own ecological research and experiments.” (sources: Davletyarova (2013) and others; see also ′Polaris Project’ in References) . – √ --Roberta jr. (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this related?
https://arctic.ru/environmental/20170215/552864.html --Menah the Great (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. This article deals with a wood bison herd in the Lena Pillars region of the Sakha Republic. The importation of this herd from Alaska to Siberia was engineered by Sergey Zimov and F. Stuart “Terry” Chapin and was supposed to end up in Pleistocene Park; this was Sergey Zimov’s first attempt to get bison to the park. Once this project got successful, the Sakha government took over. See for example the footnotes 82, 90, 91, and 92 in the “Animals: wood bison” section of the current version of the Pleistocene Park article. Any attempts by the Zimovs to get even only a few animals from this herd for their park have been refused. The herd has been kept behind fences and slowly growing since the first animals arrived in 2006; the article you linked deals with the first release of animals of this herd into the wild. --Roberta jr. (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Park size
The Pleistocene Park size is 16 km², not 160 km². In the official site, they clearly say that it's a 16 km² territory. They also say that it's a 20 km² (I think approximately) in the Indiegogo campaign. So it's 16 km², not 160. User Roberta jr. says that 16 km² is only the size of the fence, but the park is actually 160 km² and keeps changing the size, but she's wrong, because the area inside the fence IS the park. There is no area outside the 16 km² fence that is part of the park. I tried to contact her telling her to show me some evidence that the park is actually 160 km², but she doesn't reply and just keeps changing the size. @Roberta jr., if you don't show any evidence that the park is actually 160 km², I'll reserve the right to re-change the size to 16 km² as soon as you change it to 160 km².--Supremo (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess the 160 km² come from the fact that the Russian government has given them an area of that size, or actually 144 km² as they say on their website. Due to lack of funds only 20 km² of that is fenced, although "Next plan is to increase fenced area to match the size of the land Pleistocene Park owns." https://pleistocenepark.org/park/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1A81:5228:1100:B0BA:93B3:64D:68C1 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pictures
Does anyone else think the article should include more pictures of the park itself? Currently, the only picture of the park is just a field of grass. There are plenty of pictures available on the Pleistocene Park website and Facebook page. --104.231.190.221 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Official website needs updating but I have not succeeded in doing it
The present website at the bottom of the infobox https://pleistocenepark.ru/en/ is giving a not working message. The shorter https://pleistocenepark.ru works. I have tried editing but that takes me to a wikidata page that I am not allowed to edit, or I can't understand how to edit. FrankSier (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what was causing your problem, but I've updated it. Wily D 12:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed that the article has links to the official website in at least *three* places:
 * under 'External links' near the bottom of the page, which I think you corrected,
 * under 'Media' further up the page, which I corrected,
 * near the top of the page, in what I think is called the 'info box'; this still has the '/en/' at the end, and is the one I could not correct.
 * FrankSier (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cougar
Can there cougar be added to the list since it was present in Pleistocene Siberia. Byzantinefire (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You can if you have a source from PP saying they intend to. AFAIK this is not the case. Menah the Great (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

'Revived' animals
This section seems to be just a wishlist based on which animals have been found frozen in the Arctic, with no comment from Pleistocene Park or Zimov on their hypothetical introduction (except maybe the mammoth?). If so it should be deleted. Menah the Great (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)