Siberia?, the central highlands of Asia, eg Tibet, Mongolia?, Northern Sweden, Norway? And the American species, tundra areas of Alaska and Canada?
the latest on mammoth cloning
- Thread starter Chlidonias
- Start date
Siberia?, the central highlands of Asia, eg Tibet, Mongolia?, Northern Sweden, Norway? And the American species, tundra areas of Alaska and Canada?
Ah yes, with you now!
Look i was more specifically thinking of the Eurasian Steppes, such as those that sill exist in northeast Siberia. Probably because i know that there is a project there to recreate just such an ecosystem.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park]Pleistocene Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
but theoretically, yes there was possibly prehistoric elephant species that roamed many if not all of the ecosystems you mentioned.
Look i was more specifically thinking of the Eurasian Steppes, such as those that sill exist in northeast Siberia. Probably because i know that there is a project there to recreate just such an ecosystem.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park]Pleistocene Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
but theoretically, yes there was possibly prehistoric elephant species that roamed many if not all of the ecosystems you mentioned.
While I would love to think that if we didn't clone mammoths the money would be redirected to wildlife conservation, I'm afraid that's not how the world works.
It's like saying, 'imagine how much rainforest could be saved if we didn't have to pay for the Olympics?' (or indeed anything else expensive - the NHS, the Superbowl, whatever). It's a worthy sentiment, but in the real world if the Olympics weren't happening the cash simply wouldn't be available for that purpose - the money has been raised and shaved off other budgets for the Olympics expressly. Likewise, any funding given for Mammoth cloning would not be there for other uses. So the expense isn't really a good argument against it.
And if (big if!) we were reasonably confident of success, why shouldn't people want to see them?
This is an excellent point I have not seen raised before.
The first white settlers and explorers of North America were told stories of an animal described to be a mammoth. This was in what is now continental US, and for the native population to still have stories about it, it must have gone extinct not that many centuries earlier.
I think mammoths would do well in much of the area where Bison existed in the great plains and up into Canada, and would need their thick coats in winter, not because they lived where it was permanently cold.
I think mammoths would do well in much of the area where Bison existed in the great plains and up into Canada, and would need their thick coats in winter, not because they lived where it was permanently cold.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
Just because an animal is hairy doesn't generally mean it has to live in a cold climate. Having thought about it,for a few mins you could possibly use a Bactrian Camel as a comparison example for climate conditions and it is a large animal too.
These camels live comfortably in temperatures below zero to well over 40d centigrade and they moult or grow hair pretty rapidly depending on the weather.
Maybe Mammoths living in a temperate climate (the UK for example) would have moulted in summer and grown hair in winter. I am sure the UK climate would be ideal for Mammoths, chilly winters mild otherwise with the odd heat wave. Also plenty of food available in temperate climates for such a large species...there would have been plenty food in the UK 10,000 years ago for Mammoth herds - until mass de-forestation by humans throughout the UK took place.
How many people had books as children picturing a Woolly Mammoth in the snow ? - just about all of us I suspect. It was only an artists impression to suit the book. That same book probably had dinosaurs in it several pages before the mammoth that lived in dry hot climates as the pictures showed...(again the artists impression only).
These camels live comfortably in temperatures below zero to well over 40d centigrade and they moult or grow hair pretty rapidly depending on the weather.
Maybe Mammoths living in a temperate climate (the UK for example) would have moulted in summer and grown hair in winter. I am sure the UK climate would be ideal for Mammoths, chilly winters mild otherwise with the odd heat wave. Also plenty of food available in temperate climates for such a large species...there would have been plenty food in the UK 10,000 years ago for Mammoth herds - until mass de-forestation by humans throughout the UK took place.
How many people had books as children picturing a Woolly Mammoth in the snow ? - just about all of us I suspect. It was only an artists impression to suit the book. That same book probably had dinosaurs in it several pages before the mammoth that lived in dry hot climates as the pictures showed...(again the artists impression only).
Gotcha - I wasn't sure where the money would be coming from but for some reason thought it would be some environmental/wildlife charity or department of government etc - in which case the money/budget could then be used for extant species and habitat - if that makes sense
. Anyway, my mistake 
As for your second point, there is no reason now that I know the money isn't being detracted from more worthy areas of conservation - I wouldn't mind seeing a mammoth
(I'm still waiting for Thylacine cloning as well 
)
AgileGibbon
Well-Known Member
Attempting to clone mammoths is a completely pointless excercise - thousands of species are currently being wiped out due to lack of space, primarily due to the overpopulation of the human race. Bringing back an enormous elephant ancestor to occupy even more space would not be a great idea, not to mention have a massive impact on the ecosystem if they ever released a group of them
I sincerely doubt that any cloned mammoths will be released into "the wild". The truth is the monetary value of such animals will be so high that there would be no incentive whatsoever for their creators to simply release them into unprotected habitat or donate/lease them to an existing zoo. I'd find it far more likely that they would chose to capitalise on their creation by making a safari park attraction out of them. I could almost guarantee you that any mammoths roaming the steppes or tundra will be on private, contained land.
Secondly, the last of the mammoths didn't die out that long ago. 8,000 BC in an ecological sense is but a blip. To put in in perspective, all the modern species of animals you see today existed in their current form at that time. Ice Age animals did not die out and new ones evolve. As i have been saying the ecosystem that the tundra mammoth (the species they are talking of cloning) lived in is still here, more or less as it was. Many scientists would argue that biodiversity in those regions has however plummeted in their absence.
In any event, i could not imagine mammoth cloning and release as anything more than a very controlled experiment. And the way I see it, if thats what a bunch of otherwise disinterested people need as incentive to protect another swathe of habitat - then so be it.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
1) There existed more than one mammoth species within the genus Mammuthus, differing in size, fur length, distribution etc. The main subject of the project would be the Wooly Mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) that was about the size of a modern Asian Elephant.
2) Just because there are "thousands" of mammuth remains doesn't mean that all of them (or even the majority) can provide adequate material.
3) The global flora during Holocene glaciations was indeed not just "ice all over". However, the adequate flora of the ecosystem of the Wooly Mammoth, the so called "Mammoth Steppe", does no longer exist. It is more than questionable whether the current flora of the Asian steppe could support wooly mammoths.
The Thylacine reference is another affirmation why this whole "mammoth cloning project" can only be regarded as a detached mind-game begging for broad public attention, but with little if any actual rooting in reality.
2) Just because there are "thousands" of mammuth remains doesn't mean that all of them (or even the majority) can provide adequate material.
3) The global flora during Holocene glaciations was indeed not just "ice all over". However, the adequate flora of the ecosystem of the Wooly Mammoth, the so called "Mammoth Steppe", does no longer exist. It is more than questionable whether the current flora of the Asian steppe could support wooly mammoths.
The Thylacine reference is another affirmation why this whole "mammoth cloning project" can only be regarded as a detached mind-game begging for broad public attention, but with little if any actual rooting in reality.
I think it was I who made that comment, so i'll respond - I wholeheartedly agree, however all I meant by that was that there are potentially more good specimens out there to be discovered. Going by the rate of discovery (of good specimens) over the last few decades, in the next 50 years we will likely find a number more usable sources of DNA. Since "re-booting" a population will take decades. Its likely that new sources of DNA will be be found within that time. In any event, the cloning process is so difficult at the beginning anyway, that likely that will be the least of their concerns. They will no doubt be happy to one or more female clones to survive to adulthood.
Many believe the reason the ecosystem has changes is because the absence of mammoths. Much the way elephants clear the savannahs in Africa, the steppe mammoths made the steppes. Thats half of the fun of re-creating them - seeing what happens!
AgileGibbon
Well-Known Member
Nobody yet seems to have mentioned the problem they had with dolly - she had very early health problems related to old age - as her body cells seemed to be the age of the cell donor at the time of her birth. To prevent this problem, they would surely have to take DNA samples from mammoth calves.
I know a few calves get discovered from time to time, but it severely limits where they can get samples from.
I know a few calves get discovered from time to time, but it severely limits where they can get samples from.
Actually, the woolly mammoth was about the same size as the Asian - the species which reached the sort of size you quote was an entirely different, but related, form of mammoth.
But yeah, still unfeasible for many reasons already stated above.