# Should We Have Cloned Lonesome George?



## News Bot (Jun 28, 2012)

The death of the tortoise raises the question -- how can we save our endangered animals before it's too late?

*Published On:* 28-Jun-12 10:00 PM
*Source:* Discovery News
*Author:* Jennifer Viegas

*Go to Original Article*


----------



## PMyers (Jul 1, 2012)

Should we have cloned it? I believe there's no question at all. Of course we should have. We have the technology and means to extend the existence, or even reverse the decline of, endangered species. Why not use it? It clearly will not harm mankind to do so.


----------



## Manda1032 (Jul 1, 2012)

yes. and I do honestly hope they had frozen semen and tissues way before he passed too


----------



## Manda1032 (Jul 1, 2012)

also quite suprised (if they did or not I don't know cannot find info) that they didn't artificially inseminate females that were with him


----------



## snakelady-viper (Jul 1, 2012)

Big debate here even if they cloned him he would still be lonesome George the second I would love to think that they have cloned him and are waiting to announce the fact


----------



## junglepython2 (Jul 1, 2012)

Pointless, only benefit is it would further our knowledge on cloning. The subspecies has been functionally extinct for many years, cloning won't change that. Better to spend the funds on saving species that still have a chance.


----------



## PythonLegs (Jul 1, 2012)

There are still a massive amount of issues with cloned animals..maybe in the future we'll see a cloned animal from his samples, but I wouldn't want to see a tortoise that degenerates into a misshappen wreck within a few years that only exists to put a smile on a few prius owners faces.


----------



## konp69 (Jul 1, 2012)

Well, they still COULD clone lonesome george, there's no reason to assume they don't have dna samples on file or in storage somewhere. The problem arises when you consider that he was the only living member of that subspecies. So, it was him and nobody else. Breeding him with a different subspecies wouldn't propagate his sub-species either. The only option would be breeding him with a female of his sub-species. And you'd have to do a lot of breeding to get anywhere close to a viable number of "in the wild" organisms.

A lot of people seem to think that with Lonesome George gone, a whole SPECIES (The galapagos island turtle species) has vanished. In reality, 10 of the original 15 sub-species are still alive and apparently increasing in number. So yes, LG dying was a sad sad day, but it hasn't extinctified an entire species, just a sub-species.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jul 18, 2012)

Of course we should...Humans are the cloest thing to God that actullay exists so I say clone away.

Plus I'm greedy and want to see Mammoths and T-Rexes walking around again...


----------



## Hamalicious (Jul 19, 2012)

> Plus I'm greedy and want to see Mammoths and T-Rexes walking around again...



T-Rex for the win!!


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 19, 2012)

> Well, they still COULD clone lonesome george, there's no reason to assume they don't have dna samples on file or in storage somewhere. The problem arises when you consider that he was the only living member of that subspecies. So, it was him and nobody else. Breeding him with a different subspecies wouldn't propagate his sub-species either. The only option would be breeding him with a female of his sub-species. And you'd have to do a lot of breeding to get anywhere close to a viable number of "in the wild" organisms.



Nope you can most certainly attempt to breed with another sub-species of the same species, they did try. Unfortunately in this case it was unsuccessful (Perhaps this reflects that it wasn't in fact a sub-species, perhaps full species?).


----------



## BrownHash (Jul 19, 2012)

GeckPhotographer said:


> Nope you can most certainly attempt to breed with another sub-species of the same species, they did try. Unfortunately in this case it was unsuccessful (Perhaps this reflects that it wasn't in fact a sub-species, perhaps full species?).



Maybe they just didn't consider that he was gay? 

Plus, the offspring would be hybrids. The issue is more with what species the offspring would be, rather than weather he would breed with another subspecies.

Either way, his sub-species pretty much became extinct with the death of the last female.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 19, 2012)

I do not know what makes people think we can clone any animal. What works for a sheep does not necessarily work for other mammals, let alone reptiles. There are very few animals we have the ability to clone and those that have been cloned have been female, allowing the use unfertilised ova as the basis of the technique. 

Two attempts were made to mate LG with another closely related subspecies. Had that succeeded, then George could have mated to his female offspring. Then do the same with female offspring from that matting. Each mating, in turn, results in a higher percentage of Georges genes in the offspring. This could have provided a core population that could continue to breed. In addition, artificial selection could have been used to remove those individual least like the George sub-species. By the way, George could have potentially lived for another 50 years.

Blue


----------



## junglepython2 (Jul 19, 2012)

This was back in 1999, regarding male clones University Of Hawaii Scientists Announce First Male Clone


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 19, 2012)

Such a shame. Probably more chance of cloning a thylacine. What I wouldn't do to see that become a reality. I guess sadly its just natural selection. Humans thinking we're the "be-all" and "end-all" of running a perfect world when in fact we're merely passengers. Plenty of other species died out long before we got here.


----------



## K3nny (Jul 20, 2012)

Mrherp said:


> T-Rex for the win!!



Jurrasic park here we come!

on topic, wouldn't it be sort of pointless to have a single animal of a single sex with basically zero genetic diversity?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 20, 2012)

*Junglepyhon2,*
Thankyou for the update. I was feeling a bit guilty about not checking first, as it has been a long time since I took an active interest in that particular area of biology. No doubt they have improved on their survival rates of implanted embryos by now and extended the range of animals in which they can successfully clones males. However, I would say there is little doubt in the massive array of extant animal groups, that the science of cloning has barely made a dent. 

Blue


----------



## Mulgaaustralis (Jul 20, 2012)

A waste of time. And you're kidding yourself otherwise. That subspecies/species was ecologically extinct for many years. 
One or two more would not have made a difference. 
Just more green propaganda.


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 20, 2012)

What if we didn't clone him to re-create a population. what if we re-cloned him and then threw him on a menuboard somewhere!!  (eg: thylacine steaks, BBQ'ed mammoth trunk, Dodo drumsticks)


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 21, 2012)

Mulgaaustralis said:


> A waste of time. And you're kidding yourself otherwise. That subspecies/species was ecologically extinct for many years.
> One or two more would not have made a difference.
> Just more green propaganda.


I am curious as to why you stste the that the subspecies was ecologically extinct for many years. Does this infer that human contact with the original population had no influence on its decline or ar you saying that the environment in which it lived had altered or what? I would appreciate it it if could enlighten me. Thanks.

Blue


----------

