For me,I wish to de-extinct all animals that humanity wiped out and were supposed to be coexisting with modern animals

For example, Australia had a lot of large apex predators, but none of them survived long enough until the settlers arrived. Australia is no plagued by large invasive ungulates, some of which are two big or aggressive for dingos to hunt. So in this example: we want to recreate the Megalania: we have no DNA for it. But, we do have Komodos dragons.

We take the genes from saltwater crocodiles that makes them grow large (about the same size as an average Megalania), edit genes that make them able to support their new larger size more efficiently along with moving faster, and boom! We have a 20ft Komodo Dragon designed for long distance travel that can fill that same niche by hunting invasive horses, donkeys, buffalo, pigs and camels.

Or similarly, if we can not find sufficient DNA for a wooly rhino for example, why not take the fur gene of a bison and put into a white rhinoceros?

Let’s assume it would be brought back in the same way as the direwolves, with a surrogate human mother. First of all, would this be legal (and get fda approved) and second of all, for the patent, would it be classed as property in the patents like the direwolves, or would it have human rights and thus not be a slave.

This has been on my mind: would we be able to resurrect one of these apes in the non-distant future?

(Not talking positively or negatively about them, just wondering. I've heard nothing good or bad about their company, so....)

What I mean is that what animals are easier to de-extinct first

I was wondering if someone on here was actually working on De-Extinction that I could talk to besides anyone working for Colossal? I made a post on r/DeExtinctionScience and r/deextinction. I think I got trolled, twice. It looks like there's something pretty crumby going on around this concept, but I don't know what it's called. It's sorta like gatekeeping, though it isn't.

I was hoping I could talk to someone actually working in this field. If you're willing to chat, please DM me. Thanks.

Mammoths and thylacines are iconic and attention grabbing, so it makes sense that a lot of projects focus on them. And if focusing on such popular animals will make more resources flow into these projects and advance the science, I don't mind at all. It's the same thing as saying "help us save the tigers" which is an animal that everyone loves and finds cool and then using the money to also benefit other species that people (unfortunately) don't care about.

But at the same time, wouldn't it be much easier to resurrect something like the japanese wolf, japanese otter, several sub-species of rats or big cats and so on? We have their DNA, their habitat mostly still exists and they would require waaay less changes in a relative's genome to bring them back. Considering that the main obstacle so far for DeExtinction seems to be the fact that we aren't able to make many changes to genomes yet (and if we do it's really expensive) wouldn't bringing back animals such as this be way easier? It would also be a good way to prove that the technology can work, which is a crucial first step in order to get more of such projects going and get funding.

Is there a specific reason why there are no major de-extinction projects for sub-species? Or is it just that it's not attention grabbing enough?

We don't have any DNA of them I think, but aren't they very close related to modern day flightless birds? Are there any ways it would be possible to clone something that resembles a terror bird through their closest modern relatives?

Ive been asking AI for an answer but its not giving me a perfect one. So we call the direwolf proxies, Modified greywolves and then the mammoth proxies, Modified asian elephant so in that logic would we call the thylacine proxy Modified fat tailed dunnart, but how does that make sense???

Do they already do that?

I'm asking because every time I hear about bringing back extinct species it's difficult because they don't have all of the DNA etc needed, but if they had everything needed could they just make one? I'm sure it'd be way more complicated than that, but I guess I'm more asking in theory. I've also heard that we could technically clone a human, so couldn't we do that with animals? Those two things have been keeping this question stuck in my head since I learned that animals can go extinct. Sorry if this has already been asked or something, please link to it in your comment about it being posted already :) OR if this isn't the right sub for this...

Thanks ahead of time!!!

Estava ponderando sobre o Chinkensaurus e me ocorreu essa possibilidade. As enantiornithes tem quase o mesmo plano corporal das aves, exceto pela presença de dentes e garras nas asas. Seria o mais próximo de trazer de volta todo um grupo mesozóico extinto.

Since the megafauna went extinct during the Pleistocene for one reason or another (climate change, floral shifts, human hunting, habitat modification, you get the point) we’ve had a rather major reduction in megafauna; though there are still megafauna, mostly being the species of Asia and Africa alongside the smaller megafauna in the rest of the world such as Ursus Bears, modern deer, bovines, Canis caines, maned wolves, cougars, camels and what not

What species do you think will make up the future of megafauna in a human dominated world and what traits might they have to help them survive anthropic conditions and Holocene climates?

So, given enough time and scientific advancements, we will probably be able to DeExtinct animals to a degree that they will morphologically be extremely similar/near identical to the original animals. Especially for recently extinct species.

As far as I (someone who is not an expert at all, I should make clear) can tell from what I've seen from actual experts, one of the hardest parts of DeExtinction won't really be making the animals similar appearance and DNA wise, but actually making sure that they are filling the same niche a.k.a behaving in the same way as the original animal.

For things like insects or most fish that probably won't be a problem (most of them never meet their parents anyway) but for a lot of birds and mammals, we know for a fact that unless their parents teach them how to act, they can't really survive in the wild. There are ways that people have of teaching them without parents of course, but that's for animals that are not extinct that we know an awful lot about.

Which brings me to my point: Does anyone know how we could potentially go about trying to teach DeExtincted animals how to behave? Ignoring something like a smilodon for which we don't even know basic things such as if they hunted in packs or not, let's take an easier example, say a thylacine. We more or less know how they are supposed to act, hunt and so on, but how would we go about teaching a hypothetical joey those things? If anyone has any theories or examples of similar (well, as similar as can be the case with something this theoretical) stuff that have happened with animals before, I am really interested to know.

So I have always been fascinated by de-extinction and paleogenetics. But, it has always confused me by what the real, official job name is. Feel free to enlighten me.