The Curious Compendium 2023 Tour Finale: Griffons!

Thanks Kelly! I have 2 nayab that could fit the bill but they'd require more revision than I was planning... I haven't done that sort of custom for a year and am a bit nervous to do something so ambitious after so long. I may get brave though...

Next! My last very favorite AU group, thylacines.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[size=39]I recently came across this article which I found intriguing... I have thoughts that lie on either side of this debate... but I am curious if anyone here would care to share theirs? The article is in regards to a project to make this species "de-extinct" and reintroduce it to it's historic range.[/size]

[size=39][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nice too

Thank you Andreas.

Here are my thoughts on the article I posted with it. 

[size=30]The article that I posted is intriguing... I think reviving extinct species is a curious concept. There are 6+ movies to explain the drawbacks of the practice ([/size][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][size=30])... I have never thought that reviving the mammoth with the DNA we do have is viable, at best you would be getting a modern elephant with extra hair and maybe more cold tolerance. But at the end of the day, the DNA proves, it is NOT  a mammoth. It is a mere approximation of one.[/size]

[size=30]The thylacine is a better bet, with a more complete genome. But again, you will still be getting something that is not quite... right. Not 100%, close, but not the full example of one.[/size]

[size=30]Lastly, the habitat and niche that  mammoths inhabited doesn't exist anymore. So you would be further bastardizing the utility of the "Frankenstein's Monster", or simply subdue it to being an entertainment in zoo settings. The thylacine however, could take up its mantle again as top predator in mainland Australia as well as New Zealand. It's original habitat still exists. It would probably help curtail the invasive deer population there too.[/size]

[size=30]Thus, my feelings are that de-extinction is not necessary and should have limitations (with incomplete DNA reservoirs, as well as what role, if any, that animal could take in the wild), but with some examples of human caused extinction, this could be a chance to give these animals a second try.[/size]

[size=30]Lastly, my main argument would be: why are we investing in animals loooong gone and ones where the world has adapted to its abscence, while we have still living but critically endangered species who could use the help (/technology/resources/ingenuity...). The freshwater turtle female who just passed and doomed the possibility of recovery, could use this cloning tech instead.[/size]


[size=30]I am curious what anyone else may think![/size]

fine pack!

Thank you Alain. :)

Red Roos!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The old Bully didn't make it into the first pic with his 2 descendants...

One "fun" fact about these guys, is you would NEVER want to enter the water with one. They will enter a body of water as a method of self protection from predators. They commonly drown pursuers this way (often dingoes). So beware! If you were to ever see a kangaroo waist or shoulder deep in water, there is nothing innocent about it!

What a herd!

Very interesting about the homicidal roos and the reboot thylacines!
I think I would support the attempted renewal of the thylacine. Is it so different from some other recent attempts like tarpans, Sorraia and aurochs? Okay, they are recreated from descendants, admixed in the same species, but you could argue the 100% point. And admitted the thylacine's DNA donor and surrogate is quite a different creature. But their territory and environment is still there, and might benefit from their reintroduction as parts of the US northwest has benefited from reintroduced wolves. I agree with the resources could better be used on still existing but critically endangered species. But success with a charismatic species like the thylacine could help bring in more resources.

Thank you everyone! And thank you Kelly. It is interesting to discuss these sorts of things, and I enjoy seeing things from a different perspective. Thank you for your response to the idea of de-extinction.

An early-ish post as I will be preoccupied this evening. My scant grey kangaroos! At least there's 2, so they won't get lonely.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Your marsupial tribes are very beautiful, very big and it's always a pleasure to look at your pictures Paige.

The de-extinction of the thylacine would certainly be an extraordinary scientific achievement and Kelly's arguments are quite right. The Thylacine is not extinct because of habitat loss but because of guns.
But when you compare the money invested in recreating maybe one species with the number of species that disappear every year, it makes me sad.
Maybe one day we will be able to recreate an extinct species but I hope we will be able to stop the killing long before that and leave enough room and peace for the remaining species, including our own.

Kiki, you summed up my thoughts exactly. And eloquently too. :)

Beautiful roos, especially the leaping gray!

I agree with all your points about de-extinction, Paige! I don't know much about the ins and outs of the research going into bringing back extinct species, but I do know that we already have many extant species that we are breeding and have viable populations of in zoos, but no real place to return them. Thylacine habitat does still exist (if it can preserved) but so many other habitats for species that do still exist are dwindling--perhaps our focus should be there. Can both be happening at the same time? Of course, and the information gained from bringing the thylacine back would no doubt have benefits in the world of species quickly going extinct, but I think you are right--its role is a limited one, and we shouldn't be relying on the idea that we can bring them back but instead should be committing to keeping what we have in place. It almost feels like a false sense of security, especially only as headlines that would be most people's understanding of the process. "Well if the vaquita is lost, can't we just bring it back?" that kind of idea.

I also have heard murmurs about the problem of having an entirely different species raise them (like elephants raising a clone mammoth). Would they learn to behave like a mammoth, or an elephant? Do the differences matter? In those species, maybe not terribly, but what marsupial carnivore can teach a thylacine to behave like a thylacine? I feel mixed about it, mostly though because I don't know too much about it. I'm sure there are good answers out there from the people pushing these projects.

And I 100% agree about the funding. There's no way that's not a hugely expensive project. Do we gain enough to justify the expense that could go elsewhere? Or, like Kelly said, is the thylacine enough of a flagship animal that bringing it back would actually serve as a valuable conversation pawn to have in play?

An interesting world we live in! The second cloned przewalksi horse was recently born, which is very exciting and evidence that we'll get there scientifically I'm sure--just a matter of how it will be handled, and if it will be a conservation success as well as a scientific success.

Thank you Jill for your thoughts. :) There are of course, a lot of different factors that play into it all.

From what I understand, and I do not claim to be an authority in any capacity, but the company that is spearheading the two projects mentioned in that article is a private business with the intent of investing tons of money with the idea of making it back and then some. Essentially they have a capitalist view of the project. My issue with it mostly lies with the idea that this project would be making an approximation of X, not the real deal.

Genetically speaking, it CANNOT be a 100% replica of it because, as stated in the article, there is not a complete genome for either species (the thylacine is more complete than the mammoth, but still incomplete). For me, reverse engineering aurochs or tarpans is still in the same vein of making "a good approximation", but again, you cannot recreate genes that don't exist anymore. You can't reverse the clock on something like that. The only case of such in the wild we are aware of, would be the white throated rail bird that went extinct and then, as media portrayed it, re-evolved. The Aldabra rail, while phenotypically identical, is NOT the same species genetically.

As far as the behavioral aspect of it... I have concerns. As far as we know, the asian elephant would be a fine surrogate as that is the closest modern relative for a mammoth. However, as we see with other animals that very similar, socially they can be radically different regardless of genetic similarity. Since mammoths are no more, we really have no idea as to the finer points of their behavior. Besides the fact, going back to biology, a fetus would be subjected to asian elephant conditions in the womb (i.e. things like hormones) which play a critical role in development. We are barely beginning to understand this even in domestic animals (i.e. dogs and castrating them, opinions on appropriate age is currently under a revolution). But we can see in other animals that have litters or twins, hormone blending in utero causes changes in offpspring. An example would be with cattle. If a cow has a pair of twins, if they are a bull and cow pairing, the cow will be born as a "masculine female" with aggressive behavior and nonreproductive organs (called a "freemartin" cow). But what surrogate would a thylacine have? The closest approximation I can think of would be tasmanian devil or a dingo, and a placental mammal I would think would naturally reject the embryo. So an artificial womb perhaps? But again, mammals are very socially diverse and intricate. I could see a reptile being cloned or "ressurected" and being able to have instict take over to be a true blue X reptile. Since most reptiles aren't social and don't raise offspring, this is a normal behavioral response. But mammals usually require much more nurturing. So... as you said Jill, what is going to teach the pseudo thylacine to be a thylacine and not a tasmanian devil or what have you?

I will think on your other couple of points and respond a little later. I enjoy this sort of respectful discussion and would love to hear any other thoughts! A very intriguing time we live in indeed my friends.

Next are my smaller macropods; several wallaby species and such presented here. I don't have any one fact.for these... but I will note that when I heard of a wallaroo, i thought someone was combining wallaby with kangaroo, and that a pademelon really threw me for a loop when I first heard it! Such fun names!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I like it

Yes funny names indeed, so funny that French speakers use the same names The Thylogale aka pademelons sound even weird phonetically in French meaning "No melons"

Belated thank you my friends. :)

Tree kangaroos! Various species.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Phantastic, the only missing is the Kaiyodo :)

I only have the Southlands replicas

Great collection of not such common macropods (or at least not in my collection). Yes, they have interesting names. I suppose you know how kangaroos got their name?

Cool examples of some neat animals. Love the tree kangaroos! Especially that little red eyed one, is that nayab?

Thank you everyone! Jill, that is indeed a small Nayab.

Sorry I am a whole day late! Here are my Koalas.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think my "fun fact" here will be the day I learned about the koala mating call. I was passively listening to a documentary and all of a sudden it sounded like a dragon began to roar! Impressive sounds from such small guys