iNat doesn’t really encourage fossil observations, so I’m sure there are large groups of Dinosauria that are missing from iNat’s taxon tree. Is there some particular way that you’re saying they’re not following current thinking?
As for any other extinct group, if some lab claims to have brought that back back, science will peer-review that. iNaturalist, as an organization, is not involved in peer review.
As a side note, love your bio dude! The concept of creating an alternative taxonomic system based around a creationist POV is a very interesting one. Especially considering what the original created lineages may have been, and to what level microevolution has modified/diversified them. This is something I have thought about a lot myself
Sorry!
How about Ivory-billed Woodpeckers as a possible choice for re-livening (even though they may not be extinct at all)?
@larry216 birds are considered by most to be direct ancestors of dinosaurs, but iNat has dinosaurs and birds as there own classes (its kinda absurd, Cofusciosornithids are in the dinosaur class). Just noting how it would be an extremely difficult task to fix that. I don’t believe in evolution, just pointing out a weird iNat quirk.
@sethshively if you have questions or interests, feel free to private message me!
PS lets try not to derail the thread to much (:
I suspect that when organisms like these become more common, the scientific establishment will need to think of new ways of including them in the taxonomy, and iNaturalist should take cues from that. With the Colossal pups, this is pretty easy - they’re grey wolves (Canis lupus) with some minor modifications, so no change needed, except maybe a subspecies or something. But if hybridization were so extensive that a clear parent taxa couldn’t be identified, well… I think at that point, iNaturalist probably shouldn’t be leading the charge on how to classify those organisms.
If no suitable framework develops in time to handle a notable number of observations, perhaps some kind of floating taxa underneath the nearest shared ancestor would be appropriate as a temporary parking ground - so a 50/50 mix of dire wolf and grey wolf genes could be a floating, specially marked genus under Canidae. This could go all the way to having taxa float directly under Life, if things are too complex.
If we know for a fact that a new population is genetically coherent with the extinct population (a very tall order), I think putting it at the extinct population’s place in the family tree may be appropriate, but again I think scientific taxonomy may want to distinguish between the original and the novel population. Arguably even if the new organisms were genetically convergent with the extinct ones, behavioural and environmental factors could distinguish them in ways meaningful enough to warrant distinct classification. This is a question with implications on natural phenomena, too - for example, in the case of the Aldabra rail, did a flightless rail really “re-evolve” itself after its extinction, or are we looking at a morphologically similar but distinct second group?
I would probably say the dire wolfs would just be a tourist attraction. 'Visit the town of (insert town here), home to the dire wolf!".
But the wooly mice would make dope pets. Seriously. Look at them. They look adorable.
EDIT: Oh wait. This is meant for how inat would handle this, not people -_-.
Why didn’t I read this?
INat should follow what the specialists accept as valid taxa. I know, that can vary among specialists, but iNat references taxonomic sources that many if not all taxonomists accept. If some “de-extincted” organism were to be accepted as a valid extant species in some future year, then I’d assume iNat would follow that.
Exactly this…
… accompanied by many “Ok, but how about this dinosaur, wild or not?” discussions on the forum and the likely creation of Gerald 2.o.
Vu le nombre de gênes modifiés chez Canis/Aenocyon dirus, il devrait être classé ssp. ou peut-être créer le ssp. synth. En tous cas, si une espèce est ressuscitée avec un patrimoine génétique complet, je ne vois pas pourquoi il ne pourrait pas être considéré comme l’espèce préhistorique. Ce qui m’intrigue le plus en ce moment, c’est que si l’OGM dirus était relâché et qu’il atteignait une taille de population suffisante, pourrait-on vraiment le classer comme ssp. alors que le genre de Canis/Aenocyon dirus n’est pas clair.
This was possible with the Pyrenean Ibex, a subspecies which was briefly de-extincted (it only survived a few minutes), only because skin samples were taken and preserved in liquid nitrogen from the last wild individual before she died. DNA degrades so fast after death that it won’t be possible to get complete genomes of any individuals of other extinct species if the last individuals died before any tissue could be frozen.
Revive & Restore is working to bring back the Passenger Pigeon, and they’re more honest on their project page about the realistic goal than Colossal was with the Dire Wolf:
The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback began in 2012 with a clear vision: to recreate this species would demonstrate the potential of genomic intervention for de-extinction and conservation success while helping to restore the ecology of North America’s eastern forests. There’s just one catch: the historic passenger pigeon can’t be brought back to life. While we can’t resurrect the passenger pigeon, the gene sequences of long-dead museum specimens hold the key to restoring its ecological legacy vicariously through its closest living relative, the North American band-tailed pigeon. By writing passenger pigeon genes into the band-tailed pigeon genome we plan to give rise to a new population that looks, acts, and functions in forest habitats like the original passenger pigeon.
@upupa-epops I stated that we are ignoring the fact that the DNA is to fragmentary and focusing on what would happen if they figure out a way around it.
The woolly mouse would be a GMO lab mouse like any other, however that is handled on iNat. The Dire wolf seems to be GMO Canis lupus. I’m not sure how GMOs are handled by iNat, but I think this would be the same.
100% cloning would I would think would be it’s own species, and iNat would follow the scientific literature on whether this is a new synthetic species or a de-extinction of a previously described species
As for wild vs not wild I don’t think genetics or taxonomy matter, established iNat policy would be followed, escapees would be wild (but not established if establishment means are an option), and self sustained populations would be wild and established.