De-Extinction

[Coryn02]

The problem with reintroducing extinct species back into the wild would be that the niche they use to take up in their environment may have been overtaken by a different animal species. For example, I've been doing some research on a species of animal called stag-moose that lived during the last ice age and some paleontologists think that the North American moose may have caused stag-mooses to go extinct by overtaking their niche.

 

Extinct species that are brought back and reintroduced to the wild would have to compete with already existing animals. Either they'd die off or cause the other competing species to disappear. Along with that would be the problem of how they fit in the food chain with prey and predators. Whether there's enough food to keep sustain the population as well as having predators to keep numbers in check.

 

Overall, reintroducing extinct species would be akin to introducing a foreign and possibly invasive species.

If nothing else it would be like reintroducing a species that was the opposite of invasive: it was a species that was driven to extinction by influences in its environment that may have been caused by or accompanied invasive species.

 

Take for instance the thylacine of Australia and Tasmania, which was a marsupial carnivore that looked like a dog with a tiger's pelt. Humans did hunt them a lot but the biggest influence on their population aside from that was probably the introduction of dogs into its environment, which when let loose became dingos and outcompeted them for food.

 

If we did make more thylacines (which I encourage, I need one as a pet) in a way that could sustain a new population, they would probably just get outcompeted by the dingos. Naturally, we'd have to reduce their numbers to make thylacines have a fighting chance. More than likely we'd have to make a dingo-free environment for them. But that is a problem in itself, since by eliminating dingos we might let something else that was suppressed by their predation come into play that would require us to make the dingos have the same effect to return everything to normal.

 

In short, if we want to de-extinct a species, we need to be sure that nature still has a place for it and a way to rebalance the ecosystem with a low amount of overall impact. Natural selection doesn't like working that way and will fill a niche with something else once another animal goes extinct. We need to be very careful about how we do this.

[Zilla360]

I truly hope that in our lifetimes we will see extinction become a thing of the past. I mean, imagine having a Spinosaurus egg and raising it into adulthood; with the necessary safety precautions of course. I could visualize seeing a baby spinosaur chick hatch from an egg in front of me. I hope we all get to witness this one day.

[nlechoppa]

We helped killed off a lot of prehistoric animals, if not caused their outright extinction. A example is that often when humans moved near megafauna, the megafauna tended to either decline or go extinct soon after.

Here's some proof.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Soulking

[DragonNighthowler]

We helped killed off a lot of prehistoric animals, if not caused their outright extinction. A example is that often when humans moved near megafauna, the megafauna tended to either decline or go extinct soon after.

Here's some proof.

I'm still a little wary about those figures, not because I don't believe humans don't have the potential to drive nearly to extinction an specie (wolves are still persecuted in practically the whole world), but because this figures imply a time era when the number of humans was relatively low, we moved in family groups and hunted with spears made of stone. In some of those cases we didn't even have dogs with us to help in the hunt. I just can't understand how a bunch of advanced monkeys with stone spears were capable of driving mammooths, giant sloths, cave lions and cave bears amongst other things to extinction. I mean, the biggest decline of megafauna today is caused by human overpopulation, loss of habitats, fragmentation of habitats and open persecution with advanced weaponry and poison. The pressure some of this species (specially large predators) are suffering is huge, but a wolf hunt in La Culebra, for example, can imply over 100 people armed to the teeth with shotguns (no kidding, it's gotten pretty dangerous to go cycling or hiking in Spain).

 

I'm not going to deny the possibility that humans drove megafauna to extinction according to those figures, but I need a bigger explanation as to how we caused it, and so far most research in the topic I've read has been pretty ambiguous, mostly pointing at overhunting and such.

 

As for de-extinction, which is the topic at hand, I think Nine has summarized it perfectly. We should focus on preserving what we have. Many species are on the brink of extinction and the efforts are either too late, too few, or nonexistent at all. Either we do something now or by the time we can resurrect a mammooth we will have lost the iberian lynx, the cheetah and the amur leopard.

[olympe]

Very simple. By over-hunting populations that didn't reproduce well in the first place. Moas and Dodos come to mind for that one, as well as macaws (Cuban macaw and some "hypthetical extinct species" of the genus). Overhunting is probably also the reason why the giant elk (Megaloceros) got extinct. That and the formation of large, forested areas after the ice ages. And it's quite obvious why it mostly affected the big animals: They're easier to find than smaller animals, provide much more meat and really big skins or furs, which is a great advantage over hunting for small game that's hard to find, hard to catch and doesn't provide you with much of anything.

 

Of course, a lot of species also died out shortly after the ice ages - which might be partially due because these species (wooly mammoth, wooly rhinoceros, cave bear, cave lion, cave hyena...) were especially adapted to very cold steppes. Not warmer forests.

 

Many animals that have never encountered humans seem to be anything but shy - and only realize to late that humans are predators. Which usually happened around the time humans first settled new areas, like Madagaskar or Australia.

 

And, of course, we tend to take our pets and livestock with us wherever we go. Invasive species can cause great harm to ecosystems. Especially if said evasive species are either raptors (dogs, cats...) or able to reproduce much quicker than the native fauna (or flora), like rabbits.

 

There's also a very logical reason why the African megafauna was the least affected: It's because humans developed in Africa. Thus, the animals there had a chance to adapt to their human neighbors. The megafauna on other continents or islands was not so lucky.

 

 

[nlechoppa]

I'm still a little wary about those figures, not because I don't believe humans don't have the potential to drive nearly to extinction an specie (wolves are still persecuted in practically the whole world), but because this figures imply a time era when the number of humans was relatively low, we moved in family groups and hunted with spears made of stone. In some of those cases we didn't even have dogs with us to help in the hunt. I just can't understand how a bunch of advanced monkeys with stone spears were capable of driving mammooths, giant sloths, cave lions and cave bears amongst other things to extinction. I mean, the biggest decline of megafauna today is caused by human overpopulation, loss of habitats, fragmentation of habitats and open persecution with advanced weaponry and poison. The pressure some of this species (specially large predators) are suffering is huge, but a wolf hunt in La Culebra, for example, can imply over 100 people armed to the teeth with shotguns (no kidding, it's gotten pretty dangerous to go cycling or hiking in Spain).

 

I'm not going to deny the possibility that humans drove megafauna to extinction according to those figures, but I need a bigger explanation as to how we caused it, and so far most research in the topic I've read has been pretty ambiguous, mostly pointing at overhunting and such.

 

As for de-extinction, which is the topic at hand, I think Nine has summarized it perfectly. We should focus on preserving what we have. Many species are on the brink of extinction and the efforts are either too late, too few, or nonexistent at all. Either we do something now or by the time we can resurrect a mammooth we will have lost the iberian lynx, the cheetah and the amur leopard.

We didn't just have stone spears. We had fire, we had bow and arrow and cave paintings seem to imply we also invented traps a long time ago, such as pitfall traps.

Humans are not to be underestimated as killing machines.

[StormBirdRising]

I just saw Jurassic World and in my opinion, extinction is a good thing in a lot of cases.

[olympe]

That, too. We also had enough brains to scare animals so badly they went over cliffs - especially with the help of fire. We also had spear-throwers (at least since 12,000 BP, probably at least twice as long). And, later on, even dogs and horses. We also had other throwing weapons for hunting smaller birds, like bolas (120,000 to 700,000 BP) and boomerangs (23,000 BP). Not to mention bows (at least since 15,000 BP, eventually even since 64,000 BP).

 

Now, look once again at Soulking's graphic:

See when these extinction curves start to decline drastically? (And I wouldn't call the declines for Africa "drastical".)

 

In Australia, this process started around 50k to 40k years ago, when humans first settled there.

In North America, this extinction process happend rather rapidly around 12k years ago, to be followed by the same phenomenon in South America shortly afterwards. Both climate change (end of the ice ages) and the arrival of humans correlate with that time period.

In New Zealand, several large bird species went extinct shortly after human settlers arrived around 1500 (AD).

On Madagaskar, this process started around 2000 years ago - once again, when humans started to settle the island. The same trend can be shown for the Hawaiian and Pacific islands, the only difference being that these islands were settled starting around 30,000 BP and were settled in several waves.

 

I just saw Jurassic World and in my opinion, extinction is a good thing in a lot of cases.

No kidding. And it's not just dinosaurs. Megalania, Megalodon, terror birds (Phorusrhacidae), Paraceratherium - seriously, who'd want any of those in their back yard? Edited November 14, 2015 by olympe

[PixelShark]

I'm sure it's already been said, but I'm just giving my opinion. The reason extinction exists is because natural selection came into play. Many of the creatures we have today would not exist if something, somewhere, had not died out. Bringing anything too "exotic" per se would likely cause an imbalance.

 

I recognize that it's also partially the fault of humans that creatures die out. But we shouldn't try to justify the destruction of an ecosystem by trying to bring back its inhabitants from the dead. Consequences shouldn't be wiped away like that.

[olympe]

Well, where would be the imbalance in bringing back the Cuban macaw, which was hunted to extinction? (Okay, so it didn't only affect the adults, but also their eggs.)

 

What's wrong with bringing back small wooly mammoths, the likes of which survived until 4000 years ago on small peninsulas?

 

Where is the problem in returning Haast's eagle to the living, which (probably) only went extinct because humans hunted their favorite/most important prey to extinction? (Okay, so that bird was huge. And probably dangerous. Maybe it should be kept in zoos only.)

 

Why not re-breed the quagga or the aurochs?

[Ribombee]

Quite opposite, really. Pouring millions if not billions into cloning a mammoth or passenger pigeon would be using up precious funding that could go toward preserving the habitats and ecosystems of currently imperiled animals. One of the biggest reasons for current extinctions is habitat destruction, and what good is cloning if there is no suitable habitat for animals to persist?

 

Genetic variability is another hurdle with cloning back species. It would be many, many generations before a genetically stable, non-fragile population of animals could be introduced back into hypothetical habitat, and even then you'll be seeing very low reproducibility and success rate, like the critically endangered Spix macaw. I'd rather see the animals that are still alive and struggling to maintain genetic strength be given further research into breeding stable, viable populations.

 

I sincerely doubt the Aurochs will ever see a comeback too, considering the cattle being bred have very little Auroch in them and just outwardly resemble the animal. I haven't read anything about attempts to reestablish a wild cattle herd in Europe, but I'd imagine it's one of those "would like to" plans.

 

I'm not for cloning back extinct animals, and not for religious beliefs or what have you, but because it's a monetarily, scientifically unstable concept that would probably be used for tourism and publicity and not any actual environmental benefits. I love extinct animals (and plants), from the flightless owls of New Zealand to the snails of Hawaii to the eastern elk of North America and giant lemurs of Madagascar, but I feel they serve as cautionary tales and powerful incentive to protect the species we can still save. There are countless, countless numbers of surviving species with no legal protection, no monetary support, no protected habitat, and barely any factual research done on them, and they need the help we can afford them before they're wiped out. Money needs to go where it will help the most and have the biggest impact, and that's mainly in habitat preservation. Public interest and support needs to focus on critical, lesser-known issues, such as the terrible impact the exotic pet trade has on endangered reptiles, amphibians, birds, etc. or why buying products with palm oil is supporting disasterous ecosystem management.

 

Right now, cloning is a matter of "because we can" not "because it will help.

So many good points here! Until we address the causes for these extinctions, bringing them back will be nothing more than a real-life Jurassic Park. They will be for exhibition and can't be successfully reintroduced. As much as I am for funding science, we can fund conservation biology with a much better outcome.

 

Other than for anything which very recently went extinct, I highly doubt we will be able to accurately bring many species back to any level of stability. Even if we can produce exact clones without any of the issues commonly found in cloned animals, what important learning are they missing out from not having a wild parent of the correct species? There is a reason that the panda conservation effort tries to use mothers from the wild or only first generation bred in captivity. This allows them to produce babies which are taught how to survive in the wild, giving them a much better chance at reintroduction to the wild. Then we also have to manage enough genetic variability, which certainly won't be happening with most larger animals. Insects, perhaps we can find enough high-quality DNA from museum specimens, but many preservation techniques degrade DNA. There are already limited specimens from which to draw DNA, anyway.

 

If we are going to clone things back into existence, we need to know their COMPLETE environmental needs and recreate their habitat. People love poster child animals like pandas, but they so conveniently forget invertebrates and other less cute species. Yet these 'ugly' animals, plants, and fungi--even bacteria!--are all important elements of a healthy ecosystem. Ants, for example, are CRUCIAL for spreading seeds, nutrient recycling, and turning over the earth. Everyone thinks about earthworms as the major movers of soil, but ants actually do much more than do earthworms. Yet ants are the "bad guys" and worms are the "good guys". Everyone cries "SAVE THE BEES!", but they only mean honeybees. Honeybees are NOT native to most of the world, including America. Our native bees, flies, wasps, and even some moths and butterflies do a much better job at pollinating native plants. We would not have chocolate without a tiny little fly, and if you like figs, thank little wasps which are their sole pollinators. ALL of these tiny little interactions would have to be considered before we could successfully recreate the environment many of these extinct animals lived in.

[DragonNighthowler]

 

Of course, a lot of species also died out shortly after the ice ages - which might be partially due because these species (wooly mammoth, wooly rhinoceros, cave bear, cave lion, cave hyena...) were especially adapted to very cold steppes. Not warmer forests.

 

My thoughts exactly. I don't think overhunting could drive a successful top predator to extinction, not 40,000 years ago when our numbers were not counted by the billions as today and we were far more afraid of cave bears than anything else. Other factors might have come into the game, like climate change. You tell me humans encountered and already weakened and practically extinct population and finished the job, I do believe that's possible. But our few thousands of humans with our archaic weaponry driving huge mammals to extinction... doesn't sound possible.

 

Actually look at your own graphics. Precisely the megafauna that was the least affected by the presence of humans was the one least affected by climate change, being closer to the ecuator and much better adapted to heat and heavy droughts. The population best adapted to glacial conditions was the one suffering the worst after the ice started melting and a warmer climate became the norm.

 

I'm not saying humans are free of all guilt. Dodos and moas (XVIII century if I'm not mistaken) thylacyne (XIX century), the pyreneean goat (bucardo, year 2000), baiji, etc, have gone extinct, while many other species have declined way below the efective genetic population, with the amur leopard somewhere between 30 and 50 animals left. This has been due to human activity, no questions.

 

But the mass extinction events occurring somewhere between 50,000 and 15,000 years ago being entirely our fault... I don't think that's logically possible. Now you tell me these populations were badly affected by climate change and then we just happened to walk past them (our meager several thousand), then that's a whole different story.

 

ETA; About the whole "pushing animals off cliffs" tactic, is there archeological evidence of this? I keep reading it everywhere like a mantra, but I've never heard of large meagafauna cementeries at the foot of cliffs as proof of this tactic. This might have been a thing, obviously, but is it as extended as to become relevant? I'm truly ignorant in that matter and would love to read some scientific evidence about it.

Also read about pits but I highly doubt they could cause such damage to a specie. I mean, inuit have been hunting whales since thousands of years and it wasn't until the norwegians and japanese started hunting them en masse that their numbers dwindled until night extinction. I truly believe today's problem is not what we do, but at the scale at what we do it, and I doubt humans were in large enough numbers to cause damage to healthy predator-prey populations. In the end it doesn't take the same resources to feed 1 million humans than to feed 7 billion humans, half of which want to eat beef.

Edited November 15, 2015 by DragonNighthowler

[KageSora]

In theory, it could be good.

 

In practice, it's complicated as heck.

 

I mean, first of all there's the fact that if they went extinct a while back you'd have the issue of them not having a place anymore. By re-introducing them you could either be dooming them to die, or causing OTHER species to go extinct. It could upset or destroy the entire balance of an ecosystem.

 

Look at what happens when a non-native invasive species is introduced. We have countless records of the chaos that causes in the existing ecosystems, and it's not good.

 

Then, of course, there's the human aspect.

 

I mean, people already kill off the animals we DO have and drive them out of their homes because they're an inconvenience to human expansion and humans in an area. They get rid of the native animals because they want that territory to be their own, and then continue to kill them if they try to remain because of the problem they become to the people.

 

I'm inclined to think that nothing of the sort would change if we tried to bring animals back that humans caused to go extinct, unless you did so only in unpopulated areas or in captivity.

 

But, again, then you have the issue of if they could actually survive there with the changes that have taken place in nature since their extinction.

 

It's more use the resources to work on stabilizing the world we currently have before trying to bring back species that went extinct.

 

It may not be an issue if they just very recently went extinct, especially if it was because humans caused it unknowingly, but outside of that situation it's not something to be done lightly.

 

Especially with things that could very easily travel a great deal, like birds and such, because that's so much harder to control where they are to keep them alive or from messing up other ecosystems.

[olympe]

My thoughts exactly. I don't think overhunting could drive a successful top predator to extinction, not 40,000 years ago when our numbers were not counted by the billions as today and we were far more afraid of cave bears than anything else. Other factors might have come into the game, like climate change. You tell me humans encountered and already weakened and practically extinct population and finished the job, I do believe that's possible. But our few thousands of humans with our archaic weaponry driving huge mammals to extinction... doesn't sound possible.

 

Actually look at your own graphics. Precisely the megafauna that was the least affected by the presence of humans was the one least affected by climate change, being closer to the ecuator and much better adapted to heat and heavy droughts. The population best adapted to glacial conditions was the one suffering the worst after the ice started melting and a warmer climate became the norm.

Yes, the change between glacial and interglacial climate might explain the evidence from Africa and Asia (both not covered by glaciers) on the one hand and Europe and North America (with wide areas covered by glaciers) on the other hand. See the following graphics. The grey area show the maximum glaciation, while the black ones show minimum glaciation.

 

Yes, that would explain a lot.

 

However, what abot South America and Australia?

 

Merely the southernmost tips of both continents were covered by glaciers. (It's true, though, that it might explain the situation on New Zealand.) And what about Madagascar?

 

ETA: Also, I don't know about any evidence of megafauna cemeteries at the foot of cliffs, no. But this tactic is pretty obvious if everyone can come up with it, isn't it? Besides, if it was, indeed, some kind of hunting practice, what do you expect would have happened to the carcasses? A) They were left in place. B ) They were moved back to the settlement. C) A mix of both, with scavengers doing their part, too.

Edited November 15, 2015 by olympe

[DragonNighthowler]

Yes, the change between glacial and interglacial climate might explain the evidence from Africa and Asia (both not covered by glaciers) on the one hand and Europe and North America (with wide areas covered by glaciers) on the other hand. See the following graphics. The grey area show the maximum glaciation, while the black ones show minimum glaciation.

 

Yes, that would explain a lot.

 

However, what abot South America and Australia?

 

Merely the southernmost tips of both continents were covered by glaciers. (It's true, though, that it might explain the situation on New Zealand.) And what about Madagascar?

 

ETA: Also, I don't know about any evidence of megafauna cemeteries at the foot of cliffs, no. But this tactic is pretty obvious if everyone can come up with it, isn't it? Besides, if it was, indeed, some kind of hunting practice, what do you expect would have happened to the carcasses? A) They were left in place. B ) They were moved back to the settlement. C) A mix of both, with scavengers doing their part, too.

There is actually no consensus as to whether Madagascar and Australian populations went extinct before or after the arrival of humans, so I stand my point, something (Toba event) might have affected megafauna in Australia and another factor just came around. However, and in this case I'm speculating as I don't know Australia's climate 50,000 years ago, but an interglacial period doesn't only affect ice. It can and will modify climate worldwide so maybe Australia (speculating) was more humid and forrested, and it became dryer and with bigger plains and deserts... and humans just came along and did the rest of the job. Áfrican savanah might have withstood better because it might have been drier (speculating) and a few more rains was a welcome change.

 

Talking about the Toba event, which happened somewhere between 60,000-68,000 years ago, human population collapsed and suffered a severe bottleneck that pushed us to a population of 3000. Humans are very good at not dying with science but we're not such prolific breeders as only 30% of pregnancies reach to an end, so I don't expect humanity to be counted by the billions only 15,000 years later in such a way they can get to every continent in the planet and, single handedly, destroy everything with, again, spears.

 

I'm not underestimating human capacity to kill. I just don't think their numbers were sufficient to cause such worldwide havock, specially when there could be other factors in there. Also, it has been mentioned that animals in Europe might have been naive and thus easy to kill. There were Neanderthals in Europe. A deer might never have seen a dog, and yet it knows it has to be wary of the wolf look alike. Naive animals such as Moa or Dodo lived in isolated islands with no natural predator at all, which is not the case of the megafauna in Europe.

 

As for the cliff thing, I don't think there are enough cliffs or with enough easy access as to make this an obvious strategy. In my country at least most cliffs are high, hard to access and only populated by goats and prey bird. I don't see a mammoth climbing up there. We do have a bunch of coast cliffs but drowning the mammoth in an unaccessible raging sea is missing the point. If this was frequent there would be evidence. You say take the carcass back to the cave, sure, one, but if a whole herd is pushed down a cliff carcasses would rot, not to mention even a single carcass would leave evidence, and yet after researching yesterday I found nothing.

 

Again, you guys are missing my point. I'm not saying humans are not a force of evolution to be reckoned with. I'm not saying they didn't cause megafauna extinction. I'm saying they didn't do it single handedly. I don't believe they had the numbers to be able to destroy every single continent in this planet, push hundreds of species counted by the millions to extinction with a bunch of dudes with spears. I find it more plausible that there is a mixture of events, the Toba, glaciation remission, etc, which left the populations weak, and then we happened to come along.

Edited November 15, 2015 by DragonNighthowler

[olympe]

It can and will modify climate worldwide so maybe Australia (speculating) was more humid and forrested, and it became dryer and with bigger plains and deserts... and humans just came along and did the rest of the job. Áfrican savanah might have withstood better because it might have been drier (speculating) and a few more rains was a welcome change.

The problem with a glacial is that the climate all around (save for a very small belt in the tropics) is very dry. In essence, Australia would have to have been pretty dry before the glaciers started to melt.

 

However, since you bring up the Toba event, I have to admit that it might have had a hand (or whatever) in the megafauna extinction in Australia, the timing seems to be about right. In North America (and Europe, too), the timing coincides with the end of the glacial. Madagaskar, on the other hand, seems to be solely man-made. Don't forget that we're not talking about an entire continent, but an (admittedly big) island, where the megafauna couldn't just go somewhere else to avoid humans.

 

Also, I never ever mentioned animals in Europe. The "easy to kill" argument obviously only works for regions with no human population preceding the Homo sapiens settlers. Of course, Europe was already populated by Neanderthals, and Asia by Denisovans. And Africa, of course, by all kinds of homos and australopithecines.)

 

 

[Kisuli]

I really like this idea of bring back species, after all they did not go extinct "for a reason" they went extinct because of humans ignorance. I wouldn't like them to bring back animals that died because of natural causes though.

I agree 100% but I would love four compies as pets ;__;

[DragonNighthowler]

The problem with a glacial is that the climate all around (save for a very small belt in the tropics) is very dry. In essence, Australia would have to have been pretty dry before the glaciers started to melt.

 

However, since you bring up the Toba event, I have to admit that it might have had a hand (or whatever) in the megafauna extinction in Australia, the timing seems to be about right. In North America (and Europe, too), the timing coincides with the end of the glacial. Madagaskar, on the other hand, seems to be solely man-made. Don't forget that we're not talking about an entire continent, but an (admittedly big) island, where the megafauna couldn't just go somewhere else to avoid humans.

 

Also, I never ever mentioned animals in Europe. The "easy to kill" argument obviously only works for regions with no human population preceding the Homo sapiens settlers. Of course, Europe was already populated by Neanderthals, and Asia by Denisovans. And Africa, of course, by all kinds of homos and australopithecines.)

Agreed on everything.

 

I know climate tends to be dryer during glacial periods, and I'm no climatologist so I thought maybe as Australia is further to the south, and today it's pretty dry, maybe it had a warmer and more humid climate. Talking from memory I do remember reading somewhere the Sahara used to be forested during that time, so I just extrapolated one to the other. However, I'm no climatologist, I'm a dog behaviorist.

[PixelShark]

Well, where would be the imbalance in bringing back the Cuban macaw, which was hunted to extinction? (Okay, so it didn't only affect the adults, but also their eggs.)

 

What's wrong with bringing back small wooly mammoths, the likes of which survived until 4000 years ago on small peninsulas?

 

Where is the problem in returning Haast's eagle to the living, which (probably) only went extinct because humans hunted their favorite/most important prey to extinction? (Okay, so that bird was huge. And probably dangerous. Maybe it should be kept in zoos only.)

 

Why not re-breed the quagga or the aurochs?

Hence why I said not to bring anything too exotic/complex back. Smaller things, depending what is chosen, probably wouldn't cause any big problems. Although, that depends on the scale you're looking at...

[The_Impossible_Girl]

Although I don't think that de-extinction technology should be used to bring back things like dinosaurs, I can see the practical uses for resurrecting more recently extinct species. Particularly that played important parts in the wild environments they lived in and animals whose niche in their native environments have not yet been filled, like the north american mastodon (which played an important part in the spread of the Kentucky coffee tree, which is now endangered). However before humanity brings back species that we have already killed, we should try to bring back animals that are currently endangered/extirpated/nearly extinct before we bring back animals that have been dead for centuries. We owe more to these animals then to the animals we've already destroyed.

[serce2]

I know that passenger pigeons would be an extreme nuisance for us in today's day and age (think city pigeons, but millions of them occasionally flying by), but I'd love to see them in a zoo or in small (relatively speaking) flocks. Considering that the environment has adapted to the lack of Pass. Piges. though, it shouldn't be a high priority, especially with endlings needing it more.

[PrincessLucy]

I know that passenger pigeons would be an extreme nuisance for us in today's day and age (think city pigeons, but millions of them occasionally flying by), but I'd love to see them in a zoo or in small (relatively speaking) flocks. Considering that the environment has adapted to the lack of Pass. Piges. though, it shouldn't be a high priority, especially with endlings needing it more.

 

I was going to say the same thing. Millions of Passenger Pigeons would be more than an extreme nuisance, lol.

 

I remember going to The Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia (many times on vacation with my son) and seeing their exhibit talking about the last Passenger Pigeon, Martha, who died in 1914 in the Cincinnati Zoo.

 

If I ever got another tattoo, it would be a Passenger Pigeon. I like the Audubon sketch on this page.

 

http://www.ansp.org/explore/online-exhibit...senger-pigeons/

Edited May 15, 2017 by PrincessLucy

[The Dragoness]

Science is fascinating. I think it's a neat idea as long as they don't try to wrestle too violently with nature. Bringing back some species is neat, but dinosaurs? Maybe a little too complex. I just hope that they're careful and don't forget about the already existing species that would be affected by drastic changes.