Kingsize Wombat
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,010
Is this Craggy Island where the Tasmanian wolf (latest) reported appearance occurred?
I don't think it would be big enough to support a predator.
Is this Craggy Island where the Tasmanian wolf (latest) reported appearance occurred?
Is this Craggy Island where the Tasmanian wolf (latest) reported appearance occurred?
I don't think it would be big enough to support a predator.
The beast of Craggy Island hasn't been reported since the 20th of March 1998, though it has been discussed many times since. Ultimately being exposed by one of the island's clergy as a hoax perpetrated by a Mr Hudd Hastings to improve the odds of his sheep 'Chris' winning the prestigious 'King of the Sheep' competition.
Though, the variation of the descriptions given at the time do in my opinion closely resemble many modern thylacine reports.
Mr Hastings must have quite a few Sheep in that case...........
I think this will happen, but not for a long, long time.
Yes, indeed OR, maybe not in our lifetime?
A major hurdle overcome.
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.An interesting article here;
http://www.tasmanian-tiger.info/2017/04/mike-archer-cloning-tasmanian-tiger.html
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
I heard of and worked from a similar point about 'cod'. Cod are really a 'shoal of cod' and it transmits behaviour through the successive generations of new 'individual cod', including vital things like migration to warmer waters and vital food sources, behaviours that have been there for millennia. Once you harvest the crap out of them (figuratively), increasing the fry recruitment to bolster the number might not have the effect of restoring 'cod', but rather you'll end up with a lot of scattered 'individual cod' which are comparatively mal-adapted for survival. I guess that's better than not boosting stocks though.And you can't put a fucking plaster on that.
An interesting article here;
http://www.tasmanian-tiger.info/2017/04/mike-archer-cloning-tasmanian-tiger.html
Yes, indeed OR, maybe not in our lifetime?
A major hurdle overcome.
I seem to recall that Michael Crichton made just that point in The Lost World (the book, not the film, naturally!). His cloned dinosaurs in that book were disadvantaged as hunters, as they had no way of learning behaviour.Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
Ready for a U turn? I've always been led by what I've always believed was the best interpretation of the evidence, and that always said that the tiger was extinct, now I'm not quite so sure. I'm not saying I've changed my mind, and the evidence still overwhelmingly points toward extinction, but early this morning I finally got to see the most persuasive of the Adamsfield photos (and no I can't post it, it's not mine to share), and whilst I'm not convinced by any means, and think it's not quite as it seems, I have to say that I strongly believe that there's something very unusual in that shot.
It was fun while it lasted, but I'm firmly back in the extinct camp again.
Checking in a bit quiet on The Tiger.
Laudable though it may seem, once an animal has gone, there is no behavioural information on the how the animal interacted with others and the world in general. Most animals learn there basic behaviour from their fellows around them, a Tasmanian Tiger was in effect the sum of it's learning from and interacting with other Tasmanian Tigers and it's DNA. One of these things can never be recovered.
Absolutely.
I used to work in conservation, and "de-extinction" was becoming quite a hot topic at the time, with TED Talks about bringing back the woolly mammoth, and all sorts of grand claims made for bringing back extinct species. Very little thought seemed to be given to the loss of these species' habitats, or to the continuum of millions of years of existence that would have informed their behaviour.
Beyond that, I always found it an incredibly irresponsible approach to the potential of that technology to focus on "bringing back" a long-dead species. Because if that were possible, I think it would wreak havoc on existing conservation efforts, giving the general public the feeling that the loss of species wasn't all that important because we could always just "bring it back" later.
I feel about de-extinction much the same way as I feel about the idea of extant Thylacines, really - it would be remarkable if they were out there, and while I wholly believe that they are extinct, I desperately want to be proved wrong; but while we're in the midst of a mass extinction, seeing countless species die and decline all around us, it's irresponsible to focus our efforts on pipe-dreams about those already lost, rather than fighting to preserve those still with us. It's just chasing ghosts.
Absolutely.
I used to work in conservation, and "de-extinction" was becoming quite a hot topic at the time, with TED Talks about bringing back the woolly mammoth, and all sorts of grand claims made for bringing back extinct species. Very little thought seemed to be given to the loss of these species' habitats, or to the continuum of millions of years of existence that would have informed their behaviour.
Beyond that, I always found it an incredibly irresponsible approach to the potential of that technology to focus on "bringing back" a long-dead species. Because if that were possible, I think it would wreak havoc on existing conservation efforts, giving the general public the feeling that the loss of species wasn't all that important because we could always just "bring it back" later.
I feel about de-extinction much the same way as I feel about the idea of extant Thylacines, really - it would be remarkable if they were out there, and while I wholly believe that they are extinct, I desperately want to be proved wrong; but while we're in the midst of a mass extinction, seeing countless species die and decline all around us, it's irresponsible to focus our efforts on pipe-dreams about those already lost, rather than fighting to preserve those still with us. It's just chasing ghosts.
Vince, how are you.What an excellent post.. There is still some faith in mankind with people like you.
Vince, how are you.