Talk:Pyrenean ibex

Untitled
Why is the reason because Capra pyrenaica redirects here? The Pyrenean ibex (C. p. pyrenaica) is only a subespecies of Spanish ibex (C. pyrenaica). Spanish ibex it's not extinct today. It occurs in many mountains from Asturias, Castille, Extremadura, Catalonia, Aragon and Andalusia, with a population of almost 35000 savage animals. Hossmann 6 september, 2005

I see it now redirects to Spanish ibex! About the image of the Pyrenean Ibex. I think it is copyrighted. It is an image of the specimen of the Museum of Natural History in Paris, France. (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle). Pmaas 14:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

Redirection changed
The reason why Capra pyrenaica redirected to Pyrenean Ibex can be read here: Talk:Ibex. I've changed it today as the doubt about the name (common and scientific) has been removed. Pmaas 15:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

two questions
Does "nord" in the first paragraph mean "north"? Also, "during near" in the second-to-last paragraph has me stumped.
 * I should indeed be north, and the sentence with "during near" has been changed too. I gues that is better, but English is not my native language, so maybe someone else can check it to be sure. It is this sentence: "On the whole 285 embryos were reconstructed, of which they transferred 54 to a total of twelve mountain goats and mountain goat-domesticated goat hybrids, but only two of them maintained the gestation almost two months." Pmaas 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cloning project text
The text in the section "Cloning project" is taken from this page and added by User:pmaas. It is therefore assumed that he is the copyright holder and that this is not a copyright violation. violet/riga (t) 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True, I'm the copyright holder, so it is indeed not a copyright violation. Pmaas 15:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that, and thanks for all the work you have done on extinct mammals. violet/riga (t) 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

removed: verification needed tag
I removed the "verification needed" tag from this sentence: "The project could be of useful conservation value only if multiple goats could be cloned to form a viable gene pool. As it is, cloning one goat will not save the subspecies." The next paragraph explains that if only one goat was cloned, there would be no members of the opposite sex for it to breed with. Also, even if it was possible to create a male from the existing female DNA, other DNA sources would be needed to avoid inbreeding. These facts are common sense, and therefore need no verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarevna (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically reverted the whole article back to a few weeks ago
Someone made a major edit that basically ruined the article, repeating some stuff, deleting others, making it an organizational nightmare, etc. I don't think it was vandalism, just badly done. Other people made important edits afterwards, though. I pieced together what I think was the original text to their respective sections. Just letting people know Silenceisgod (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting date of de-extinction
Near the top of the article, it says that the clone was born in 2003, while further down it states multiple times that the attempts in 2003 failed and the clone was born in 2009. Both claims are sourced. I did a bit of searching, and various reliable websites will say that the correct date is either 2003 or 2009. Can someone properly verify which date is correct? Crimsonraptor • (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The journal article announcing the de-extinction was accepted in 2008 and published in 2009, but the article itself doesn't give a date of birth. However, both Carl Zimmer and Alberto Fernandez-Arias (one of the study's authors; at 10:38 in the video ) give the date as July 30, 2003. So the birth was announced in 2009, but actually occurred in 2003. Ackatsis (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is actually confusing. To me it also reads as if the official year is then 2003. With the wording of announcement in 2009, this seems to magically move the species-rescue to 2009, which is really strange. I think it should be 2003 indeed. Aside from this, I think the article has to be more clear: I read in another book from 2012 (titled "Regenesis") that the Pyrenean ibex is not extinct, due to the event in 2003 of species-rescue, but from reading the wikipedia article here, it is very clear that the species is extinct. It does not exist right now anymore. It even is insinuated in the wikipedia article that the species may not be "proper" due to failed analysis prior to their (claimed, alleged or true) extinction. The article needs to be more focused and clear on this, so I kind of agree with the complaint from 2013. It should be made more clear, so that the visitor is not confused. Imagine if someone suddenly says the mammoths are back and thus no longer "extinct". 2A02:8388:1604:F600:A023:1A46:73DC:AD2 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Extinction date should be 2003
This species' cloned specimen which died after seven minutes was cloned in 2003 so it doesn't make sense for this article to use the original extinction date rather than the new one. --174.102.9.42 (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We follow the IUCN. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

IUCN source shows Capra pyrenaica as "Least Concern"? Not Extinct?
I was trying to verify that this is indeed extinct. The source to the IUCN links to https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/3798/10085397 "Capra pyrenaica" (Iberian Wild Goat) which is listed as "Least Concern" with 50K count at least.

Either we need to specify this particular subspecies and/or IUCN needs to have a separate page verfying it's extinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthonaut (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)