BBC Focus Magazine

[MikeG]

Lonesome George, the last Galapagos tortoise of its kind, has died as he approached middle-age. George was 100, but his species can theoretically reach 200. Attempts were made over the last decade to mate George with 2 closely related females, without success. My question is, why wasn't cloning attempted? I hope his sperm was saved and frozen. Hopefully, some of his DNA will be set aside to attempt cloning later, if that's not currently possible with reptiles.

Btw, where did this expression,"kick the bucket" originate from?

[M Paul Lloyd]

Last I heard MikeG a sample of sperm from Lonesome George has been preserved but the main problem is not so much finding a suitable female to inseminate but the actual process of insemination (artificial or otherwise) is not that well documented and so duplication (with any degree of success) is rather unlikely.
It may seem like shooting fish in a barrel but unless you have some idea as to what a barrel looks like and can actually load a gun its just never going to happen is it?

As for 'kicking the bucket' the best (but not necessarily correct) explanation I have ever been given was that people intent on hanging themselves would do so by standing on one that was upturned before placing the noose around their necks and kicking said pale to complete the dreadful act. Ergo you 'kick the bucket' and die............

[MikeG]

I wonder how complex it would be to harvest eggs, inseminate them, and bring them to term in an incubator? Given hat we've already progressed towards cloning in some species, artificial insemination shouldn't be that tough. The fact that tortoises lay their eggs after fertilization makes it seem easier as well. The problem before may have been that George was in no mood for mating while alive, and retrieving his sperm was impossible. Now that he's passed on to that great nature reserve in the sky though, things should be simpler, especially if they have already preserved some sperm as you say MPL.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I have no idea MikeG but I'm assuming that it isn't as simple as it sounds.

But maybe one day.

[Fleck]

Why bother? I'm sure there's plenty of photos and film of it if people want to see what they looked like. If something can't be bothered to reproduce then it's come to the end of the evolutionary road.

[Shadowwolf]

A most harsh pronouncement there Mr Fleck, I like your thinking

[M Paul Lloyd]

I have to admit I do rather agree, the Giant Tortoise had its day but like anything else that goes extinct it had its day so lets look forward to the next evolutionary step that fills its niche .............. always supposing that precious niche still needs filling of course?

After all lets consider Polar Bears, yes really magnificent animals.. but what do they actually contribute to the world around us apart from supplying some film crews and an expensive narrator with a handsome income?

No really.. what?

[MikeG]

I assume you guys are joking First of all though, in case you aren't , Georges species was wiped out by sailors stocking up on meat. He spent most of his existence alone, and was introduced to 2 females that his species is closely related to. Who knows why they didn't interest him. Pheromones are wrong? Their shell was not the right shape? Who knows what turns tortoises on. The point is, mankind is responsible for his species' extinction through no fault of his own. Related species that were spared mans raids on nearby islands still maintain a healthy population.

[M Paul Lloyd]

As was the Dodo, and joking apart as the global human population grows so the habitats of a great many species are being lost. We no longer have wolves in the UK because their simply isn't room for them and when Bears were reintroduced into parts of Germany they had to be removed because they started killing cattle.
Pretty amazing that they didn't see that coming.

So in the long term I think that trying to put right one extinction isn't going to redress the balance much. It's a shame but rather inevitable don't you think?

[MikeG]

As the dominant species, I don't know if it's right for us to eradicate everything else to make more room for ourselves. There is a sensitive balance in nature that is upset when a species disappears.

The ebony tree (Diospyros egrettarum) was unable to rebound after extensive logging on Ile aux Aigrettes because the giant tortoises and skinks that used to eat its fruit and disperse its seeds had become extinct. So Christine Griffiths at the University of Bristol, UK, and her colleagues introduced 19 adults of the Aldabra giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea, pictured) from another island between 2000 and 2009. The animals promptly began dispersing ebony seeds. Seeds that had passed through the digestive tracts of tortoises germinated more often and faster than those that had not. Ebony seedlings now dot the island.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3008c.html

Who knows what George's demise means for the grand scheme of things on the Galapagos? One thing that comes to mind is less tourism revenue. The fact is, human habitation is forbidden there, it's not as though he had to go to make room for a high-rise. I hope his species is successfully reintroduced. In fact, I hope Dodos are eventually reintroduced. As for the Bears in Germany, I think farmers could have been compensated for the occasional loss of some cattle, just as farmers are compensated when newly introduced wolves In the Yellowstone Park attack cattle there.

I don't agre that man has a right to bulldoze all habitats to make room for himself. If we accept this is ok, the Amazon Rainforest will soon be a fond memory, and the repercussions will be real. Both in climate change, and lost medicinal plant species and what not.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I agree with you MikeG, but as the human population grows so inevitably all non essential species are going to lose their habitats and will end up extinct or in zoos, the natural balance will have very little bearing on the ouitcome. Unless of course we decide to limit the global human population somehow?

[Shadowwolf]

As the dominant species, I don't know if it's right for us to eradicate everything else to make more room for ourselves.

As ones who have the potential to know what we're doing then we should probably be mindful to an extent and try to avoid unnecessary damage to other species. However, in nature the arrival of a particular species into a new region can put pressure on that which is already there, maybe even lead to the eradication of one or more local species. They adapt to new situations or fail, how it is in the wild.

There is a sensitive balance in nature that is upset when a species disappears.

There is a balance yes but I'd reckon that it is not always sensitive such that the removal of one means a catastrophe for all, there will be changes but not necessarily deleterious overall. Most species that have lived on this planet are now gone and what remains manages well enough, in fact had it not been for the removal of large predators like dinosaurs we may never have had the space to get a foothold and evolve to where we are now. As I mentioned, species adapt to a changing environment or their survival is in jeopardy, most impacts on environment had nothing to do with us and even some of that was by earlier societies who were not in a position to appreciate their actions wider impacts. There is a general balance but it's in a state of constant flux.

That said, I don't think we should take a cavalier approach and let em all adapt or perish, we should be striving to lessen our impact and curtail our expansion. Or like the folks on Rapa Nui we may find our own actions have seriously curtailed our ability to survive.

[MikeG]

...inevitably all non essential species are going to lose their habitats

Sorry MPL, but I don't think we have the right to judge what is essential or not. Usually, it's only after a species has disappeared that we realize what it was useful for.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying MikeG I really do, at least from the perspective of the cozy fireside of a world where most of these species still manage to coexist in relative harmony with us humans.

But project the world not even 40 years into the future, consider that by the year 2050, the global human population could be as much as 9 billion strong.... that's 9,000,000,000 people.... where are they all going to go?

Yes we may not "have the right to judge what is essential or not" but in reality human survival will over-ride any such obligations and species after species will be allowed to perish regardless of the consequences. It is the Darwinian system, survival of the fittest and over primordial time mass extinctions have seen dramatic shifts in population such as the Permian where around 70% of all species went extinct (without human intervention) and yet life still went on to prevail and actually flourished.

Consider the effect that rising CO2 levels are said to have on the global climate, with really very dire long term consequences.... and what exactly is being done about it?

Apart from some political blustering and a few profiteering taxes...... ? Absolutely nothing of any practical use!!

So in the long term I have to say that unless we take very direct action right now to preserve species faced with extinction then it really isn't going to count for much in the long term.

However on a more positive note I am pleased to report that the New Zealand 'Night Parrot' has been saved from extinction....... at least for now.
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BN ... 54888.html