does /an/ think it's possible to bring them back?

>>2046472
I don't know. Why do we want them back? Wouldn't they just fuck up a landscape that hadn't seen them for several decades?

>>2046472
I'm just here waiting for some live Tiger to be found somewhere in Tasmania or the mainland of Australia.

>>2046486
I don't think so, since their extinction was relatively recent, when you look at the big picture. and considering they lived in remote Tasmania and similar places, it probably wouldn't be too hard to introduce them back

>>2046525
honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if a small population has survived under the radar

Considering thylacines were my favorite animals as a kid I sure hope so OP, I sure hope so.

>>2046541
>honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if a small population has survived under the radar

Australia is so fucking big and a very large chunk of the land is uninhabited by humans so it's entirely plausible.

>>2046486

Nah hopefully they'd fuck with the feral cats.

>>2046675
>>2046541
Theres a very small chance, but thylacines were only found in Tasmania in european times. Tasmania is far, far smaller than Australia (Same-ish size as Ireland, so smaller than the UK) so unfortunately there's less of a chance that we've just completely missed it.
HOWEVER there are some very remote forests in tassie and people pop up every now and then claiming to have seen a tiger so there's always a chance.

>>2046692
I was under the impression that the thylacine once existed on mainland Australia...

I doubt they are there and undiscovered, but I wouldn't be surprised if they knew of a population and just denied their existence until the numbers got to better levels.
Nothing to stop poachers and whoever quite like everyone thinking the animal is extinct.

>>2046698
Yes, before the abos and dingos arrived.

>>2046581
I heard about a research project that was able to successfully sequence the entire mitochondrial genome from museum specimens, so maybe it's becoming more and more possible

>>2046692
>>2046750
do you think they'd try to reintroduce them to mainland Australia?

Willem Dafoe killed the last one

>>2047024
If we clone one will he kill it?

>>2046705
This is Australia, not fucking India.

We don't have "poachers" who hunt endangered animals to grind up their balls to make aphrodisiacs. We're not a fucking third world country.

>>2046705
>I wouldn't be surprised if they knew of a population and just denied their existence until the numbers got to better levels.
Does that actually ever happen? Every time I hear about a species that they thought were to be extinct resurfaced, it's all over the news. Just recently happened with some frog.

>>2047067
That's a lie. Look at your dugongs. Getting trapped in fishing nets isn't intentional but people are still poaching them(not just the abbos, which are allowed to do it up to a point).

>>2047074
>people are poaching dugongs
Source?

>>2046692

What about New Guinea? It has a fuckload of wild territories and thylacines were known from there.

>>2047076
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dugong+poaching

Also brings up other animals such as sea turtles, bandicoots, etc. Most of the results are Queensland.
Don't get your panties in a twist. Every country has illegal wildlife trade, you're just not special.

File: laughing-man-mixed-race-male-hysterically-32711748[1].jpg (126KB, 1300x1040px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1300x1040px

>>2047067
>We're not a fucking third world country.

>>2046705

Farmers are a much bigger issue than poachers would be. The political uproar that would happen if we introduced a large carnivore onto the mainland?

Plus we have no idea if they'd be able to out compete dingoes.

>>2047131
No farmer (unless they have chickens) will have problems with thylacines. They weren't able to kill any livestock larger than that (despite their reputation).
Rabbits could be also vulnerable, but they are a plague there so nobody is going to miss a couple of them.
Perhaps the only problem would be the competitors.

I want them to be back, they're adorable, and that's all I have to say about that.

>>2047074
>Every time I hear about a species that they thought were to be extinct resurfaced, it's all over the news
Who's to say they weren't keeping it a secret before they report it as suddenly rediscovered?

Eh, I dunno, bringing extinct animals back sounds awesome in theory but problem is the ecosystem has most likely adapted to their absence unless, in theory, they have been extinct only a handful of years.

Any extinct animals that could be brought back through cloning would most likely be doomed to zoos.

>>2049075
Ecosystems don't change that quickly.

I'd agree with you if we were talking about stuff like mammoths.

>>2049075
Nigger, its only been 80 years since they went extinct.

>>2046472
Do they still have their dna? If so, it could be possible to clone one.

>>2047031
Sadly, yes.

>>2047067
Nah mate, we killed for sport.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 600x762px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x762px

>>2049343
Theoretically there might be enough DNA fragments in teeth from taxidermy subjects to reconstruct the entire genome. The technology to print the entire DNA strand also exists. But what's missing is the structure of the chromosomes.

DNA is wrapped around protein nodules called histones and the combined DNA histone cord folds together much like a protein which makes the familiar chromosome shape. This shape, along with other factors governs the expression of the genes, which in turn govern the structure of the chromosome. Without these factors a viable organism cannot be resurrected simply from the genome alone.

So far only very simple viruses have been created from a printed DNA strand. These strands were also inserted back into viral shells that had their DNA removed, and we can't yet make something even as simple as a viral shell. Even then they failed to produce a viable virus 99 out of 100 times. Unless there is a frozen thylacine somewhere we will never see a live one in our lifetimes.