If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question
But behind the scenes lies a more complicated reality.
What Colossal actually did was edit a small number of gray wolf genes, aiming to create physical traits that resemble those of the extinct dire wolf. The edited embryos were implanted into surrogate domestic dogs.
Many scientists and reporters expressed skepticism about the claim that this amounts to restoring the dire wolf. Experts pointed out that tweaking a handful of genes does not replicate the full biological reality of a long-extinct species. Most of the dire wolf's genetic makeup remains unknown and unreplicated.
This gap between appearance and biological identity raises a deeper question: What exactly is a species, and how do you decide whether something belongs to one species rather than another?
Biologists call the answer a species concept – a theory about what a species is and how researchers sort organisms into different groups. As a philosopher of science who studies what defines a species, I can say this: Whether de-extinction projects succeed depends on which species concept you think is right – and the truth is, even scientists don't agree.
When scientists talk about biodiversity – the variety of life-forms found in nature – species are the basic building blocks. A species is supposed to reflect a real division between distinct groups of organisms in the natural world, not just a convenient label.
In classifying living things into species, scientists are trying to 'carve nature at its joints' to reflect real patterns shaped by evolution. Even so, deciding what counts as a species turns out to be surprisingly difficult and highly controversial. Scientists have proposed dozens of distinct species concepts – some scholars have counted over 32 ways to define a species – and each draws the lines a little differently. These definitions don't always agree on whether an organism is part of one species rather than another.
Two of the most influential species concepts highlight the challenge. The biological species concept defines a species as a group of organisms that can naturally breed with each other and produce fertile offspring. Under this view, African forest elephants and African savanna elephants were once classified as the same species because they could mate and have young together, even though they lived in different habitats and looked different.
Another approach, the phylogenetic species concept, emphasizes ancestry instead of breeding. A species, in this view, is a group that shares a unique evolutionary history, forming its own distinct branch on the tree of life. By this standard, researchers found that forest and savanna elephants had been genetically evolving separately for millions of years, long enough to be considered different species even if they could still interbreed.
Understanding these different species concepts is crucial for evaluating claims about de-extinction. If Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi could naturally mate with historical dire wolves and produce fertile offspring, then they would be considered true dire wolves under the biological species concept.
But for definitions of species that emphasize evolutionary history, such as the phylogenetic species concept, the lab-created wolves would not qualify as real dire wolves – even if they were indistinguishable from the originals – because they did not descend from historical dire wolves.
Despite differences on how best to define species, there is a surprising degree of consensus among scientists and philosophers on one big idea: What makes something part of a species is not an internal feature, such as a specific set of genes, but a relationship to something else – to its environment, to other organisms, or to a shared evolutionary history.
By this way of thinking – what is often called relationalism – there is no special 'lemon gene' that makes a lemon and no hidden genetic marker that automatically makes an animal a dire wolf. Commonly shared across all these theories is the notion that belonging to a particular species depends on connections and context, not on anything inside the organism itself.
But what if that consensus is wrong?
At first glance, the standard ways of defining a species seem to work well. But every now and then, nature throws a curveball – and even the most trusted definitions don't quite fit.
Take the case of the blue-winged and golden-winged warblers. These two songbirds look and sound different. They wear different plumage, sing different songs and prefer different habitats. Birders and organizations such as the American Ornithological Society have always classified them as separate species.
Yet under two of the most common scientific definitions of species, the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, blue-winged and golden-winged warblers are considered the same species. These birds regularly mate and produce young together. They've been swapping genes for thousands of years. And when scientists looked at their nuclear DNA – the genetic material tucked inside the nucleus of each cell – they found the two birds are 99.97% identical. This finding suggests that even careful, widely accepted species definitions can miss something important.
So what if, instead, the key to being part of a species lies deep inside the organism, in the way its basic systems of life fit together?
Recent work in biology and philosophy suggests another way of thinking about species that focuses on a hidden but vital system inside cells: the partnership between two sets of genetic material. I and my colleague Kyle B. Heine explore this idea by drawing on research in mitonuclear ecology – the study of how different parts of an organism's genetic material adapt and work together to produce energy.
Virtually every cell contains two kinds of DNA. One set, stored in the nucleus, acts like an instruction manual that guides most of the cell's activities. The other, found in structures called mitochondria – the cell's energy centers – contains its own much smaller set of instructions geared toward supporting its unique role in keeping the cell running.
Producing energy depends on precise teamwork between nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, like two musicians playing in perfect harmony. Over millions of years, the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of each species have evolved together to form a unique, finely tuned system.
This insight has led to a new way of thinking about species, called the mitonuclear compatibility species concept. According to this idea, an organism belongs to a species if its two sets of genes – those in the nucleus and those in the mitochondria – are optimized to work together to generate life-sustaining energy. If the cellular partnership between these two genetic systems is mismatched, the organism may struggle to produce the energy it needs to survive, grow and reproduce.
By this standard, different species aren't just defined by how they look or behave, but by whether their nuclear and mitochondrial genes form a uniquely coadapted team. For example, even though blue-winged and golden-winged warblers are nearly identical in their nuclear DNA, they differ by about 3% in their mitochondrial DNA – a clue that their energy systems are distinct. And that's exactly what the mitonuclear compatibility species concept predicts: They really are two separate species.
Bringing back a species like the dire wolf isn't just a matter of getting the fur right or tweaking a few visible traits. According to my preferred species concept, even if a recreated animal looks the part, it won't truly be a dire wolf unless its inner genetic systems – the ones that power its cells – are finely tuned to work together, just as they were in the original species.
That's a tall order. And without restoring the full inner machinery of the original species, any lab-grown look-alike would fall short.
Understanding how scientists define species – and how those definitions shape the possibilities of de-extinction – offers more than just a lesson in biological bookkeeping. It shows that classification is not just about names or lineages, but about recognizing the deep biological patterns that sustain life, offering a deeper appreciation of what it really means to bring back the past.
Reviving an extinct species isn't like assembling a model from spare parts. It means recreating a living, breathing system – one whose parts must work in concert, not just look the part.
And that's why philosophy and science both matter here: To understand what we're bringing back, we must first understand what was truly lost.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Elay Shech, Auburn University
Read more:
Colors are objective, according to two philosophers − even though the blue you see doesn't match what I see
Why is astronomy a science but astrology is not?
Should we bring back the dodo? De-extinction is a feel-good story, but these high-tech replacements aren't really 'resurrecting' species
Elay Shech does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
a day ago
- Time Business News
Prostate Cancer: When to Treat and When to Monitor
You've probably heard the words 'prostate cancer', especially if you are more than 50 or a dear person goes through it. But a million dollars is a question of whether you immediately treat it or wait and see? Unlike many cancers, which require immediate action, prostate cancer sometimes plays by a different set of rules. This is right! Sometimes, nothing can be the best you can do right now. But how do you know when to work and when to catch? In cities such as Jaipur, where advanced medical treatment is easily accessible, selection is a real conversation starter between aggressive treatment and careful monitoring. Many patients begin the journey by detecting the best prostate cancer treatment in Jaipur, where their options become important. To understand prostate cancer, it is useful to paint the prostate: a small walnut-shaped gland under the bladder and next to the rectum. Most never give it a new idea until something goes wrong, but still, the organ calmly creates most of the fluids that carry semen during ejaculation. Prostate cancer begins when cells in the prostate start growing uncontrollably. Not all of these cells are aggressive, though. Some just sit there, minding their own business, growing at a snail's pace. Certain things increase your chances: Age (especially after 50), Family history, Being African-American, Obesity, Diet high in red meat and low in veggies. Sometimes prostate cancer whispers long before. Watch out for: Urin When cancer increases, then similar symptoms: blood in urine or semen, pain in the hips, back, or chest, erectile dysfunction PSA (PSA-Prostate-Specific Antigen) is a protein made by prostate cells. A high level doesn't always mean cancer, but it's a red flag that needs more checking. Not fun, but necessary. Your doctor inserts a gloved finger into the rectum to feel for lumps or hard spots on the prostate. When doctors see something unusual, they do a biopsy, which means taking a small needle core from the prostate to look for cancer cells. After an MR or CT scan can be ordered, the team helps check if the illness has spread beyond the gland. Low-risk cancer is slow-growing and unlikely to spread beyond the prostate, yet high-risk disease has features that suggest? It could move around the body more quickly. Pathologists combine two main patterns of cancer to make a Gleason score between 6 and 10. A score of 6 or 7 usually means that the tumor is mostly, while a score of 8 or more creates anxiety as the cells seem very aggressive. This means regular PSA testing, current biopsy, and monitoring. Ideal for low-risk cancer that does not increase or cause problems. Most are used for elderly patients or people with other health conditions. If the symptoms appear, treatment begins. Until then, this hand is closed. If the cancer is aggressive or causes symptoms: Radical prostatectomy – removes the prostate.e Radiation Treatment – Kill Cancer Cells Hormone Treatment – Cut the testosterone that drives cancer Chemotherapy – for advanced cases If urination hurts or the patient feels bone pain, waiting is rarely wise. A rising PSA level in many blood tests usually indicates a more aggressive disease and pushes many men against active treatment. A glygon score of 8 or higher or some rare, rapidly growing cell types is required soon to later. Gleeson can be carefully seen instead of relieving cancer that scores six or lower on the back, without pain. In men whose hearts, lungs, or other organs create a greater risk than cancer, careful observation may be more understandable than aggressive surgery. Some prostate tumors develop so slowly that they rarely change in ten years. In such cases, it seems to jump right into aggressive treatment, more like an exaggeration than progression. Simple options have power. Squeeze dishes with tomatoes, drink green tea instead of sugary drinks, cut down on red meat, and aim for a daily journey; Together, these habits can calm the body and mind. Steady watching beats hit-or-miss guesswork. Letting blood tests and scans slip means allowing tiny troubles the room to blossom into big surprises. The story of each cancer is one by one. A thoughtful urologist weighs the results of your test, general welfare, life goals, and feelings, which you like best. Living with uncertainty is draining. Byy explaining the why behind each option, a skilled urologist in Jaipur turns fog into practical road signs and soothes anxious nights. To determine whether the treatment or monitoring of prostate cancer is not a size-dependent landscape. It depends on your age, health, cancer phase, and how you feel about 'waiting and watching'. But the rest was secured – both options can be part of a successful strategy. The key is informed and open interaction with your doctor. Whether you need security or a game plan, consult a reliable urologist in Jaipur who can set you in the right direction. Not really. Certain types grow so slowly that they never cause trouble, yet they still need regular check-ins. Only if you skip the doctor visits, stay on schedule, and have a solid plan for low-risk patients. At the top of the list are tomatoes, broccoli, green tea, walnuts, and oily fish. High-grade, aggressive versions can move to bones and other organs if left untreated. It varies. Some men test every six months while others only once a year. click here for more articles TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Axios
2 days ago
- Axios
Agency tackles "most urgent energy challenge": clean cooking access
The International Energy Agency is launching the next phase of its work to expand access to cleaner cooking in sub-Saharan Africa, where progress has been slower than in other regions. Why it matters: Widespread use of polluting fuels like wood, charcoal and dung — and open fires or inadequate stoves — is a massive health and economic problem. Lack of low-polluting cooking methods contributes to 815,000 premature deaths annually in Africa, IEA said in a new report. Energy Secretary Chris Wright in January described access to clean cooking fuels as "the most urgent energy challenge on the planet today." Threat level: "Women and girls pay the highest price, spending hours each day collecting firewood or other biomass, and breathing in harmful smoke that leads to serious long-term health impacts," IEA head Fatih Birol writes. This also comes at the expense of education, the report notes. Yes, but: It's a solvable problem with existing tech and fuels like liquid petroleum gas, advanced biomass cookstoves, and electrification. IEA estimates that clean cooking access for every African household would take less than 0.1% of annual global energy investment over 15 years. Driving the news: The report explores policies and infrastructure across Africa, where there's lots of action but more needed on finance and policy. It's a very granular, country-specific look at the landscape and solutions needed — think stuff like LPG cylinder safety and tariff policies that avoid thwarting bioethanol while keeping duties on alcohol, to name just two. IEA has a new policy and infrastructure roadmap to full access in Africa by 2040 that requires an estimated $37 billion in investment. It follows work like a 2024 summit that brought new financing pledges. State of play: Diplomatic attention has already risen at recent Group of 7 and Group of 20 summits. And a number of countries in Africa and elsewhere have made big gains and launched new efforts, with a suite of new policies of late. Over the past five years, countries like Kenya and Nigeria are extending access to 2.7% of their population annually, IEA said. But clean cooking nonetheless lacks the profile of some other energy topics. The big picture: Daniel Wetzel, who heads IEA's sustainable transitions unit, notes it crosses global health, development, and energy agendas. "Because it's straddling these different pieces, sometimes it gets lost," he said in an interview. "But ... from a solutions perspective, the energy industry is the key to unlocking it, and all the benefits are the ones that are accruing to women, to health, to emissions and ... greater prosperity," he said. "How do you tie it together, how do you elevate it? This is where the IEA and Dr. Birol has really wanted to come in — using that convening power to move it up the agenda," he said.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Why giant moa — a bird that once towered over humans — are even harder to de-extinct than dire wolves
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. A biotech company that claims to have brought dire wolves back from extinction has announced plans to resurrect giant extinct birds called moa. However, experts say that dire wolves were never truly resurrected, and that moa will be even harder to de-extinct. Earlier this month, Texas-based Colossal Biosciences said it had teamed up with filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson and Indigenous partners to bring back the 12-foot-tall (3.6 meter) South Island giant moa (Dinornis robustus) and other moa species. These flightless birds roamed New Zealand until they were hunted to extinction by early Māori settlers around 600 years ago. The new project will be coordinated by the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, a joint venture between the main Māori tribe (iwi) on the South Island of New Zealand and the University of Canterbury in Christchurch. It's a multifaceted project that aims to combine traditional Māori knowledge, wildlife conservation and genetic engineering-driven de-extinction. However, the project has already come under fire. Critics have highlighted that some Māori iwi oppose de-extinction, while several scientists have argued that genetically modifying living animals can't bring back lost species. The scientific criticism is similar to the commentary after Colossal unveiled its "dire wolves" — a species that went extinct more than 10,000 years ago. Colossal's "dire wolves" are genetically modified gray wolves (Canis lupus) with 20 gene edits. The company claims they are dire wolves (Aenocyon dirus) because they have some observable traits identified in the dire wolf genome, such as increased size and a white coat. However, genetically, they're still mostly gray wolves. The same will be true for the living animal Colossal modifies for the moa project — but for moa, it's even more complicated. Related: T. rex researchers eviscerate 'misleading' dinosaur leather announcement Moa's closest living relatives are a group of South American birds called tinamous. The largest tinamou species is smaller than most domestic chickens, so is minuscule compared to South Island giant moa. Australia's emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) are the next closest relative, but while these large flightless birds are physically more similar to giant moa, they're still not as big, growing to an average of 5.7 feet (1.75 m) tall. Both of these living relatives also separated from moa a long time ago. "The common ancestor of the moa and tinamou lived 58 million years ago, while the common ancestor of moa and emu lived 65 million years ago," Nic Rawlence, director of the Otago Palaeogenetics Lab at the University of Otago in New Zealand and a critic of the moa plan, told Live Science in an email. "That's a lot of evolutionary time." To put that in context, dire wolves only split from modern wolf-like canids — the group that includes gray wolves — around 5.7 million years ago (or even more recently at 4.5 million years ago, according to a recent preprint involving some of Colossal's scientists). That means moa had a lot more time to evolve unique traits. Image 1 of 3 Image 2 of 3 Image 3 of 3 Rawlence explained that moa and their closest living relatives descended from a group of small flying birds called lithornids. These animals lived around the world and gave rise to different groups that independently lost the ability to fly. As Rawlence puts it, these flightless birds were "filling the job vacancies in the ecosystem left by the extinction of the dinosaurs." Moa and emu lost flight through a process called convergent evolution, whereby different organisms evolve similar traits. That means, according to Rawlence, that the physiological and developmental mechanisms behind their body plans evolved independently, potentially via different genetic routes, which poses a challenge when it comes to bringing moa back. "Genetically engineering specific genes in an emu to match a moa could have dire developmental consequences given this independent and convergent evolutionary history," Rawlence said. Live Science asked Colossal whether there were any health risks associated with genetically engineering living animals to be more like extinct animals. Colossal's chief science officer, Beth Shapiro, told Live Science that the company was certified by the American Humane Society and that animal welfare was a priority in their work. "We thoroughly evaluate health risks of any proposed edit before selecting them for our final list of edits," Shapiro said in an email. Colossal's moa de-extinction plan Before Colossal begins creating its modern-day moa, the company aims to sequence and rebuild the genomes of all nine extinct moa species, while also sequencing high-quality genomes of their closest living relatives. This will allow Colossal to identify the changes that led to the moa's unique traits, including their large body size and lack of wings, according to Colossal's website. The researchers will then use primordial germ cells, the precursors of sperm or egg cells, from living species to "build a surrogate bird" and make genetic changes to create birds with moa traits. The company needs both male and female surrogates to carry the sperm and egg of their "moa," to then produce the genetically modified offspring. Colossal's website states that emus' larger size makes them a more suitable surrogate than tinamous. However, details on this part of the process are limited. Shapiro told Live Science that they were "still in the process of selecting the surrogate species for moa de-extinction." Emus lay large green eggs, around 5 inches (12 cm) long and 3.5 inches (9 cm) wide. Still, that's nothing compared to a South Island giant moa egg, which were 9.5 inches (24 cm) by 7 inches (17.8 cm). RELATED STORIES —'We didn't know they were going to be this cute': Scientists unveil genetically engineered 'woolly mice' —Colossal's de-extinction campaign is built on a semantic house of cards with shoddy foundations — and the consequences are dire —Dodos were fast and powerful, not slow and inept, definitive preserved specimen suggests "A South Island giant moa egg will not fit inside an emu surrogate, so Colossal will have to develop artificial surrogate egg technology," Rawlence said. Colossal briefly mentioned artificial eggs during its moa announcement, but didn't provide details on this part of the process. Live Science asked Colossal whether they could explain how Colossal will hatch a South Island giant moa. "Our exogenous development team is exploring different strategies for artificial egg incubation, which will have application both for moa de-extinction and bird conservation work," Shapiro said in an email.
