Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2023 December 23

= December 23 =

Is producing tetraploid human embryo possible?
I refer to current technology, and to an embryo that will thrive.

Zarnivop (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Our Tetraploid complementation assay says: "Such a tetraploid embryo can develop normally to the blastocyst stage and will implant in the wall of the uterus. The tetraploid cells can form the extra-embryonic tissue (placenta, etc.); however, a proper fetus will rarely develop." (links omitted). Note that is only using one kind of tetraploid (fusing the two cells of a two-cell embryo), so it's a doubling of all normal chromosomes rather than a "four parents" model. The most advanced research mentioned there is back from 2009, leading to full-term mice. Presumably more has been done in the last 14 years, so someone who has more-recent info please update our article. DMacks (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Current dhole population?
Any answers? 20 upper (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Our article (dhole) cites the IUCN Red List, which identifies Cuon alpinus as endangered, with a population of fewer than 2500 adults in the wild.
 * The Red List website more specifically puts the number between 949 and 2215, with notes describing the challenges to establishing more precise numbers. Those figures date to 2015, with the caution that the population is exhibiting a downward trend. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wonder why the article didn't mention that. I'm really disappointed that such important and instructive information has been omitted. 20 upper (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The link to the Red List is right in the footnote for the population number, and easy enough to follow. I'd say it's a judgement call whether or not to include a more-specific eight-year-old estimate with very wide uncertainty in a general encyclopedia article. Honestly, the portion of the Wikipedia article on Distribution and Habitat probably tries to capture too many details already&mdash;or at least is in need of a cleanup. The information isn't organized by any clear geographical or chronological scheme. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is completely out of context and doesn't belong there. This is not a research paper, so the article should not go into this much detail. One sentence even stated that "One pack was sighted in the Qilian Mountains in 2006", I'm sure none of us care about that, and I don't see what it adds to the subsection as a whole. Will see what I can do. Any suggestions? 20 upper (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your basis for "none of us care about that"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean to say that it's not important information. 20 upper (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I for one respectively respectfully disagree. I concur that the section would benefit from some reorganisation as discussed above, but this particular fact, concerning an increasingly rare species, does not seem to me to be too trivial for mention. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I, for another, respectfully suggest you meant "respectfully". :) :) -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Respect to you, since you're right. Odd how one's brain intends one thing but one's fingers type another. Duly corrected. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See also this 2021 journal article which I have added to the "Threats" section. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed typos you introduced. 20 upper (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)