Latest news with #NgaiTahu
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Science
- 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.
The Independent
11-07-2025
- Science
- The Independent
Scientists try to bring 12-foot tall giant bird back from 600-year extinction
A Texas -based company with backing from Lord of the Rings film-maker Sir Peter Jackson is trying to bring a giant bird back from extinction. Colossal Biosciences has announced an effort to genetically engineer living birds to resemble the extinct South Island giant moa, which once stood 12 feet (3.6 meters) tall, with $15 million (£11m) in funding from Sir Peter. The collaboration also includes the New Zealand -based Ngāi Tahu Research Centre. It is not the first time they have tried to resurrect a species; scientists at Colossal successfully bred designer gray wolves with genetic similarities to the extinct dire wolf. But it is the first time they have tried to raise a bird, which, given that bird embryos develop inside eggs, presents different challenges to mammalian IVF. Colossal says it aims to resurrect the species within five to 10 years. The first stage of the project will be to identify well-preserved bones from which it may be possible to extract DNA, said Colossal's chief scientist Beth Shapiro. Those DNA sequences will be compared to genomes of living bird species, including the ground-dwelling tinamou and emu, 'to figure out what it is that made the moa unique compared to other birds,' she said. The genetically modified birds will then be hatched out and released into enclosed 'rewilding sites', the company says. 'The hope that within a few years, we'll get to see a moa back again – that gives me more enjoyment and satisfaction that any film ever has,' says Sir Peter, who has collected between 300 and 400 mao bones himself. 'The movies are my day job, and the moa are my fun thing I do. Every New Zealand schoolchild has a fascination with the moa.' But the idea is not without controversy. Outside scientists say the idea of bringing back extinct species onto the modern landscape is likely impossible, although it may be feasible to tweak the genes of living animals to have similar physical traits. They have mixed feelings on whether that will be helpful, and some worry that focusing on lost creatures could distract from protecting species that still exist. The moa had roamed New Zealand for 4,000 years until they became extinct around 600 years ago, mainly because of overhunting. A large skeleton brought to England in the 19th century, now on display at the Yorkshire Museum, prompted international interest in the long-necked bird.
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Peter Jackson Invests Millions to 'De-Extinct' This Species
Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson is temporarily pivoting from filmmaking, pouring millions of dollars into a project which hopes to bring an ancient species back from extinction. The Associated Press reported earlier this week that Jackson and his partner, Fran Walsh, have invested $15 million in a joint effort with bioscience company Colossal and the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre in New Zealand to bring the South Island giant moa back from extinction. The moa, known as moa nunui by the Māori, was the tallest species of bird on record to ever have walked on Earth and was one of the tallest, surpassed only by the Malagasy elephant bird. They existed for about 4,000 years and went extinct roughly 600 years ago. Jackson, an avid collector of moa bones, got in touch with Colossal after hearing about the company's efforts to 'de-extinct' the dire wolf and the woolly mammoth. 'The movies are my day job, and the moa are my fun thing I do,' he said. 'Every New Zealand schoolchild has a fascination with the moa.'Although scientists say it is 'unlikely' that the moa could be completely brought back from extinction, it's possible that its traits could be infused into other bird species. 'There's lots of different scientific hurdles that need to be overcome with any species that we pick as a candidate for de-extinction,' explained Beth Shapiro, Colossal's chief scientist. 'We are in the very early stages.' For his part, Jackson seems to be all in. Although the director specified he's 'certainly not retired' from filmmaking during a recent interview with Screen Rant, he finds the moa consuming more of his imagination these days. 'To me, de-extincting the Moa would be just as exciting, if not more exciting, than any film I could possibly make,' Jackson admitted. 'I've made a lot of movies, but to see the giant moa brought back would be a level of excitement that I think would supersede anything at this point in time.' Peter Jackson Invests Millions to 'De-Extinct' This Species first appeared on Men's Journal on Jul 11, 2025
The Herald Scotland
09-07-2025
- Science
- The Herald Scotland
Extinct New Zealand bird latest species Colossal wants to bring back
"Why aren't you doing the moa, which is a thing that I really care about?" Jackson told USA TODAY he asked the genetics wizards at the company, referencing the species of flightless birds which were indigenous to New Zealand but went extinct about 600 years ago. "I mean, the Tasmanian tiger ... and the mammoth's great, and everything else, but the moa is the thing that I was really passionate about," Jackson said. "And they said, 'sure we'd love to do it'." What is a 'sprite'?: NASA astronaut captures rare phenomenon from 250 miles above Earth Evidence of Jackson's passion about the moa: over the past 20 years or so, the filmmaker and his partner Fran Walsh had amassed a collection of more than 300 moa bones. As Jackson learned more about Colossal - DNA in ancient dire wolf bones helped create a dire wolf genome - he could envision the possible de-extinction of the moa. "With the recent resurrection of the dire wolf, Colossal has also made real the possibility of bringing back lost species," Jackson said in a press release about the new project. An advisor on the moa project, Jackson helped involve the Ngai Tahu Research Centre at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. The centre - established in 2011 to support education for the Ngai Tahu, the main Maori tribe of southern New Zealand - will direct the project, which also includes animal conservation efforts and the biobanking of other native species for preservation. "Every decision we make along the way in the research and the de-extinction is being led by them and governed and supported by them," said Ben Lamm, CEO and co-founder of Colossal, which is also creating a New Zealand subsidiary of the company. "It's been massively rewarding, because it also affords us the ability to get so much deeper in the culture in a way that we've never even done when we worked with other indigenous groups around the world." What animal is Colossal looking to bring back next? The South Island Giant Moa, so named because it was indigenous to New Zealand's south island. While there were nine distinct species of the wingless moa - including birds the size of turkeys - the South Island Giant Moa stood out, approaching 12 feet tall with its neck outstretched. Considered the world's tallest bird before it went extinct, "it's part of a family of large birds that once inhabited our ancestral tribal territories," said Kyle Davis, a Ngai Tahu archaeologist who has helped search for moa fossils as part of the project. The Giant Moa was "gigantic," weighing up to 250 kilograms (550 pounds), Paul Scofield, an moa expert and advisor on the project, told USA TODAY. "It was heavily covered in feathers from the head and even down the legs. It had really very massive feet, far more massive than any bird," said Stevens, the senior curator of natural history at Canterbury Museum, which has the world's largest collection of moa bones. A kick from the moa could be deadly, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, which noted the moa fed on seeds, fruits, leaves, and grasses, and laid one large egg of up to 7 inches in diameter. Experts say there were about 150,000 of the tall birds when the Polynesian settlers came to south New Zealand. Within about 150 years, they were extinct, said Mike Stevens, the director of the Ngai Tahu Research Centre, in the press release. "During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, moa provided meat for sustenance, and bones and feathers for tools and decoration," especially in Te Wahipounamu (the official Maori name for southwest New Zealand), he said. The Giant Moa remains a symbol for the people of the south island and its potential resurrection fits within the country's many ongoing conservation efforts including the protection and resurgence of the kakapo, a flightless parrot. Research into de-extinction of the moa will likely shed light on New Zealand's ecological past. "It's really going to answer so many questions about prehistoric New Zealand," Scofield said. "Every single thing we discover about this amazing animal is really going to help flesh out what New Zealand was before humans arrived." So far, Colossal has created a genome of the tinamou, thought to be the closest living relative of the moa. While there's a lot of work ahead, Jackson envisions a natural environment for the Giant Moa to roam when it returns, he said in a promotional video about the project. "We're now at the point where being extinct isn't really the end of the story." Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @ & @mikesnider & msnider@ What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day
Scoop
09-07-2025
- Science
- Scoop
Moa 'De-Extinction' Plans Announced
An overseas company has announced plans to 'bring back' the South Island giant moa. Colossal Biosciences, working with Ngāi Tahu Research Centre and Canterbury Museum, says it expects to 'resurrect' the moa within five to eight years, aiming to release the animal into 'expansive, secure ecological reserves.' Their team are extracting and assembling DNA from moa remains and looking at related South American species to potentially use as donor animals. In April, Colossal announced its 'de-extinction' of dire wolves. Its chief scientist later told New Scientist they are 'grey wolves with 20 edits that are cloned.' The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment. Previous third-party expert comments on the dire wolf story are available here. Associate Professor Phillip Wilcox (Ngāti Rakaipaaka, Rongomaiwahine, Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairoa), Kaiawhina Māori, Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics; Kaikōkiri Māori, Genetics Teaching Programme; Affiliate of the Bioethics Centre (Te Pokapū Matatika Koiora), University of Otago, comments: 'While at first glance the project appears exciting and is very slickly promoted, there are many uncertainties surrounding it. For example, based on our recent research, wider support from iwi members – and other tribal groups – is not guaranteed: it remains to be seen if these artificial facsimiles of moa that do not have a whakapapa relationship with Māori will be accepted as taonga. 'Moreover, based on the size of the financial investments indicated in the media, the project may not deliver on it's primary goals within the stated timeframes. Multiple prior experiences with implementing new biotechnologies show that these frequently cost more money, time and effort than initially thought. There are often barriers unforeseen at the beginning of a project, that require additional investment to deliver on primary goals. 'There are also uncertainties around who will generate the data, and who will have access to that information. Because at least some of these species occurred outside the contemporary Ngai Tahu tribal boundaries, other Māori communities also have interests that should be acknowledged. Their support of this project is also uncertain. 'What is reasonably certain however, is that this initiative will not deliver emancipatory outcomes for nga iwi katoa. Māori communities face numerous challenges and issues that such a project will not meaningfully address. A fuller, more thorough evaluation of this initiative is required to more clearly determine who will benefit – and who won't.' No conflicts of interest. Aroha Te Pareake Mead (Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Porou), member of the IUCN Policy Development Working Group on the use of Synthetic Biology in Conservation, comments: 'De-extinction is a misnomer, a false promise, that is rooted more in ego than a genuine effort to conserve species. These are exercises in the egotistical delight in the theatrical production of 'discovery' devoid of ethical, environmental and cultural considerations. Bring the moa back? To where? To what quality of life? To roam freely? ''Bringing a species back' requires the use of a proxy species to be the host, and hence, what is created is a hybrid. IUCN, the world's largest conservation organisation, issued Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit. The Guidelines clarify that hybrids are not generally assessed as pure species on the IUCN Red List.' No conflicts of interest. Dr Karaitiana Taiuru (Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Toa), Director of the Indigenous Genomics Institute, comments: 'The Moa is a Taonga Species to Māori who have significant whakapapa to the Moa. 'In the South Island at least, mātauranga Māori tells us that the Moa were clumsy and often died in crevasses in the land and with broken legs, not through being eaten en mass. So, this is an opportunity for the local hapū to use modern day sciences to revive a lost and important part of their culture on their land. It is also likely to create future new commercial opportunities, perhaps addressing food sovereignty issues.' Conflicts of interest: A descendant of Ngāi Tahu/Ngāi Tuahuriri. Professor Emeritus Philip Seddon, Department of Zoology, University of Otago, comments: 'Extinction really is forever. There is no current genetic engineering pathway that can truly restore a lost species, especially one missing from its ecological and evolutionary context for hundreds of years. 'Despite Colossal Biosciences' eventual reframing of dire wolf de-extinction as actually creating an ecological replacement using a genetically modified grey wolf, there is no hint in their recent press release that the best we can hope for is an ecological replacement for a New Zealand moa. 'Details are missing but with the generous 5 to 10 year time frame they have given themselves enough leeway to drip feed news of genetically modifying some near relative of the moa. Any end result will not, cannot be, a moa – a unique treasure created through millenia of adaptation and change. Moa are extinct. Genetic tinkering with the fundamental features of a different life force will not bring moa back.' Conflict of interest statement: Phil is an Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of Otago. He has published on the bioethics and ecology of de-extinction and was the chair of an IUCN (World Conservation Union) Working Group that devised guiding principles on de-extinction for conservation. Professor Tammy Steeves, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, comments: 'Colossal—a 10-billion dollar biotechnology company that seeks to combine 'the science of genetics with the business of discovery'—has announced plans to 'resurrect' the South Island giant moa. 'In their recent announcement about 'resurrecting' dire wolves, Colossal was quick to highlight their end goal: to use the 'de-extinction' technologies developed to 'resurrect species', like the dire wolf, to save living species from the brink of extinction, like the red wolf. 'Tucked quietly into their messaging were hints at ambitions to do the same here in Aotearoa. 'We can now anticipate a ramp up in debates over the use of de-extinction technologies to save endangered bird species. 'We can draw fodder from Colossal's plans to restore lost genetic diversity in the pink pigeon alongside plans to de-extinct the dodo. Both species are endemic to Mauritius. 'There is no straight line from 'de-extinction' to saving endangered species. Applying these technologies to conservation raises numerous complex questions that demand diverse perspectives and forms of knowledge, especially here in Aotearoa New Zealand. 'Beyond the ethical, legal, political, and economic issues raised by using de-extinction technologies in conservation, the scientific challenges are immense. 'For example, to de-extinct the dire wolf, the team at Colossal focused exclusively on morphological traits controlled by a few genes of large effect. In other words, they targeted 'big impact' genes, none of which are related to improving traits associated with reproduction and survival. 'Recovering small, inbred populations would require targeting multiple traits associated with reproduction and survival, most of which are likely to be controlled by many genes, each of small effect. Such 'small impact' genes are notoriously hard to find, especially in endangered species. 'Even if the genes associated with reproduction and survival could be found and could be edited in a relatively large number of individuals, without rapid population growth, the risk of losing these gene edits in subsequent generations would be high. 'In short, if it sounds too good to be true, it likely is.' Conflict of interest statement: 'Tammy Steeves is a Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury Professor based in the School of Biological Sciences. Her research focuses on the ecological and evolutionary processes that contribute to the formation and maintenance of species boundaries, and the application of this knowledge to enhance the recovery of species at risk. Her interdisciplinary team is world-renowned for integrating genomic and non-genomic data to develop culturally responsive conservation genetic management strategies for some of Aotearoa New Zealand's rarest species.' Associate Professor Nic Rawlence, Director – Otago Palaeogenetics Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Otago, comments: On engagement with tangata whenua 'I'm shocked by this announcement, bluntly, given my research group has been working with tangata whenua, iwi, hapū, rūnanga, and trusts around the motu for over 10 years, and there is very little support for de-extinction of New Zealand species for many reasons. 'One, there's no habitat left. It's largely been destroyed through environmental modification. If you do bring a species back, you need to bring back enough individuals that they are not inbred like the English royal family or the Habsburg dynasty. If you bring back animals, they are going to require conservation. Who's going to conserve them? Who's going to provide tangata whenua with the money to conserve them so we don't create opportunity costs? That's where money gets pulled from one area to conserve the de-extinct moa, and it could result in less money to conserve some of our other really endangered species that could result in their extinction. 'There are also [longstanding] major concerns with tangata whenua around the country around not being involved in discussions around genetic engineering, not being Māori led, but also around samples: bone samples, DNA going offshore. Who owns that DNA? [There are] concerns around intellectual property rights, monetary IP, and this not being another example of colonialism. There are all of those concerns that have been floating around, such that whenever we have done engagement – and I can say I'm involved in a project that is sequencing the genomes of moa in New Zealand – that in our conversations, there has been no support for de-extinction. And tangata whenua want the DNA to stay in New Zealand, and all the sequence data to stay in New Zealand, and don't want de-extinction. 'So, with this announcement, it's encouraging to see that the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre is front and centre with these discussions. And if you actually look at the really big, long press release, it's encouraging to see that there are discussions around the need to restore the habitat, what used to be there, because you can't bring something back if you don't have the habitat. 'But one of the concerns I've got is de-extinction has always been talked about for conservation purposes, and you read the press releases, and you watch what's on the media this morning, and the moa will be brought back and put in a game reserve for ecotourism purposes, and not released in the wild. I see no point in that at all. It's undeniable that this technology will and could have real benefits to conservation of New Zealand's endangered species. Let's say, for example, we know we can genetically engineer a kākāpō so it's resistant to a disease, but we shouldn't be bringing back species to undo, as Ben Lamm said on Breakfast TV this morning, 'the sins of the past.' That means we're not learning from extinction. 'The Trump government said they wanted to do away with Endangered Species List because there was de-extinction. I could see the New Zealand government wanting to do the same, given if an endangered species gets in the way of development, then development wins. 'One of my major concerns is actually, given all of the concerns of tangata whenua around the motu, is the engagement that Colossal has done. Ngāi Tahu is a very large iwi with lots of individual rūnanga, similar to say, Ngāpuhi, with lots of different hapū. And in my research team's engagement, we have dealt with individual rūnanga as locally as humanly possible. I'm calling on Colossal and Canterbury Museum and the Ngāi Tahu Research Center to ask: how wide have they done their engagement across Ngāi Tahu, across all the different rūnanga, across iwi in the South Island? Have they got free, prior, and informed consent across all the rūnanga? Have they listened to all of the views, or have they made a captain's call because it looks like support has been cherry picked? Because I know there are individual Ngai Tahu runanga who are against de-extinction. The iwi at the top of the South Island are against the de-extinction of the giant moa (or any moa), which also occurred in their rohe (it's not just in Ngai Tahu rohe). If you are going to de-extinct a giant moa or do something this big, we really need a South Island-wide or a national consensus before we go forward.' On candidates for interspecies surrogacy 'The moa is most closely related to a small flying bird called the tinamou in South America. Now, to get to the common ancestor of the moa and tinamou, you'd have to go back 60 million years of evolution. So genetically engineering a tinamou might be quite hard. You could genetically engineer an emu, but you're not going to recreate a moa. You're going to recreate something that may look like a moa, but we don't know whether it's even going to function like a moa in the ecosystem. So, for Paul Scofield and Canterbury Museum to say that this is an unprecedented opportunity to see how a moa functions in the environment, I don't see it as that at all. There are no living analogs of moa at all amongst the ratites, like the emu, the cassowary, the rhea, so I don't see a genetically engineered ratite being an analog of a moa. 'What Colossal did with the dire wolf was probably the easy part compared to what they want to try and do with the moa. They think, in five to 10 years, that they will be gifting a baby moa to Ngāi Tahu. I think that's a pipe dream.'
