Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Talk:Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi

Not actual dire wolves?

In the article published in The Hollywood Reporter, which is already cited in the article, the following statement about the three animals can be read: "no ancient dire wolf DNA was actually spliced into the gray wolf's genome.". It is essential that this is included in the article. On a more general note, I believe the tone of the article can be examined more closely and can be tuned to be more in-line with NPOV. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did Colossal publish any papers about this like they did for the woolly mouse, or has it just been news outlet coverage so far about the three animals? Is this similar to that backbreeding project from the 80s, or is this more in line with their woolly mammoth project?
Woolly mouse paper: Multiplex-edited mice recapitulate woolly mammoth hair phenotypes | bioRxiv Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Colossal claims that there will be a preprint later like the woolly mouse, but so far, there are only news outlet coverage. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note also that a preprint published by the company is not an independent reliable source. Please see WP:PREPRINT for reliability concern. Preprints are generally considered to be WP:SPS as they have not completed the peer review process. Independence, of course, would require someone other than the company to write about these wolves in order for us to make any claims to de-extinction or the like. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same people behind the 2021 paper are behind this one as well. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that, what is your source? I would love to read more on that. Dopupmine (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the same authors, from what I've read. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colossal Biosciences just published the preprint, but none of the three GMO wolves are even mentioned, and the preprint doesn't suggest that dire wolves are exclusively closer to gray wolves at all. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.04.09.647074v1.full.pdf Junsik1223 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Song of Ice and Fire

Game of Thrones being a television adaptation of a novel series, shouldn't we give credit to the novel series for where Khaleesi's name comes from? 2607:FEA8:995F:E000:591F:B837:D21B:BAE2 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters that much, as the name occurs in both. Different situation from something like Meraxes, for example. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page focus & name

I believe it would be better to change the focus from these three individual animals to the genetically engineered breed: the Colossal Dire Wolf. Yes; they are not true dire wolves, but they are also not necessarily typical grey wolves. My perspective is that they should be treated the same as the Colossal Wooly Mouse. BOTTO (T•C) 06:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: They are all named individuals, unlike the woolly mice in which only two are named. The woolly mice still exhibit standard laboratory mice behaviour to my knowledge, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi display significantly different behaviour from grey wolves. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Edelgardvonhresvelg: You're saying you don't believe the focus should be on the category of the creatures (the Colossal Dire Wolf) in the same vein as the Colossal Wooly Mouse, but the individuals themselves? BOTTO (T•C) 00:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Botto What I meant to say is that I disagree with renaming the article to "Colossal's dire wolf" or "Neo dire wolf" due to the current developing nature of the situation. The focus of the article is about the individuals and the methodology behind their creation. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was apparently misinformation floating around about an additional pup called "Titus". Either way, the goal of this project is clearly to make a population of the breed, which should be the scope here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of misinformation from both sides of the debate surrounding this subject. I really want the articles to stay as neutral as possible as the situation develops further, such as when that peer-reviewed paper is published. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Titus the pup that died at 10 days old, from a ruptured intestine? I haven't heard a name provided for that one. Dopupmine (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Treating this like Colossal Wooly Mouse would be inappropriate. Wooly Mouse isn't a common name for a species, so you don't run into the problem of inadvertently endorsing the controversial position that Colossal made dire wolves. Copying in my comment on the other rename thread here:
"Colossal Dire Wolf" gives too much credence to the idea that the subjects of this article are "Dire Wolves," when the balance of sources suggest that this framing is at best controversial. "Dire wolf" is a common name of Aenocyon dirus. By your title, do we mean "authentic Aenocyon dirus made by Colossal," or do we mean "Colossal's version of Aenocyon dirus"? The first interpretation is not supported the sources at this time (as you'd agree), and the second presumes there can be a "version" or "interpretation" of A. dirus. What is uncontroversial is that the subjects of this article were the products of a stated attempt to recreate A. dirus, and appending "project" communicates this rather clearly. Dholish (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dholish I think his main concern was with naming the article after the project rather than the animals of the project, not the specifics of how that could be done. Would you back "Colossal dire wolf project" as a rename candidate? Kaotao (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they are not colossal. "Colossal Biosciences dire wolf project" is preferable. Dholish (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations grammar

The grammar towards the end of limitations where it lists off a large amount of ice age megafauna could be unnecessary. A potential fix could be shorting it so that only a few species are stated in passing instead of the large list currently. MEgstad (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed recently due to being changed to a reception section. If it is added back, maybe it could be something like "another problem faced is that none of the megafauna that dire wolves preyed on are absent." Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an elegant solution. In my opinion, even a link to megafauna in this manner would be better. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Species

Should we even consider them gray wolves? Zyxrq (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're genetically modified grey wolves with no DNA from other species. So yes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point being, are they genetically distinct enough to technically be considered their own species or subspecies. Also I wasn’t calling them Dire Wolves. Zyxrq (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell how they will be classified, but is a genetically modified sheep not a sheep? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we should consider them gray wolves. They're gray wolves who have had their genes tinkered with to give them a different presentation but asking "are these gray wolves?" is about as productive a question as asking, "are Pugs dogs?" Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say we wait for a scientific authority to decide on classification instead of making a judgement ourselves. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way: absent independent, peer-reviewed, secondary sources, we should not be calling these any species other than gray wolves. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“we should not be calling these any species other than gray wolves.” Why? If they are genetically distinct enough they probably would at least be considered a subspecies and or new species of wolf. I agree with Morrison Man when he says we should wait for a scientific authority to decide on a classification instead of making judgments ourselves. Zyxrq (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, they aren't distinct enough. Most geneticists cited in our sources say the same and Shapiro herself has admitted that considering them dire wolves only works in the company propaganda. We are merely following our sources, your assertions though are entirely WP:OR. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, also @Gotitbro just so you know I wasn’t making any assertions, I do not know where you got that idea. I was just saying it’s possible they could be distinct enough and that we should wait before making any claims of what species they are. Could you also provide the sources you are referencing? Also I never made any claims that they are Dire wolves, mainly because the sources say otherwise. Zyxrq (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

To quote this article: "Their genetic modifications resulted in several key physical differences from gray wolves, including a white coat coloration" - perhaps someone might clarify what this might be: Arctic wolf. 14.2.203.227 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal's genetic research from the skull and tooth specimens in their upcoming peer-reviewed paper claims that dire wolves had pale fur colouration, not red like many people erroneously believe due to that artist's interpretation from the 2021 paper. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the quote I gave above from the text of this article "Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi". I was not aware that white coat coloration separates gray woves from dire wolves, especially when the arctic wolf, Alaskan tundra wolf and the Greenland wolf all have white coats. The article text needs amendment. 14.2.203.227 (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to pale colouration, thank you for the clarification. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2025

Edit April 8, 2025; new proposed title: Colossal Biosciences' Dire Wolf Project → Colossal Biosciences Dire Wolf Project (no apostrophy).--Blockhaj (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi → Colossal Biosciences' Dire Wolf Project – The current title is useless for new readers, as it is just a collection of names with no hint of the article subject. I propose we move the article to "Colossal Biosciences' Dire Wolf Project" as per the companys PR videos. There will ultimately be more pups and this article shouldn't be about the first three in the longrun, as that is not the focus of interest. Blockhaj (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 03:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per simon Shaneapickle (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a move, but not to the currently proposed title. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the preprint submitted for peer-review has not been published yet. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no difference to the title. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support a move but I don't think the proposed name is a good choice. The current name isn't great or particularly recognizable. I had no idea they were called that, and most people probably didn't either. Something more appropriate could be "Genetically modified dire wolves" or perhaps "Engineered dire wolves". Paprikaiser (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think either of these names sufficiently describe the topic. Though I agree on the current one not being recognisable. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose classifying them dire wolves is controversial. I opose the move, keep it unchanged. Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed name but may support a name change if a more elegant title could be made. Vanleos (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be open to names to as The de-extinction of the Dire Wolf or The Dire Wolf Revival. Vanleos (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would offer the title "Colossal Dire Wolves", as that is at least one of the terms the company has floated. Braedencapaul (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already proposed earlier, it would be good if you could add your opinion on it to the above discussion. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, per the above comments concerning them not being real Dire wolves. 2605:4A80:7400:8500:6D90:FCAB:B144:78C (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a more informative name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of Colossal Biosciences Dire Wolf Project (without the apostrophe). The apostrophe is superfluous and does not conform the convention we use in other articles. We do not say "United States' Declaration of Independence," nor do we say "Bofors' 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60." Dholish (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC) (comment split by --Blockhaj (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Merge

Merge into Colossal Biosciences Colossal Biosciences De-Extinction Efforts (new article). My first reaction was to support a name change but oppose the nominated name. I was trying to think of an alternative name, but I couldn't avoid using "Dire Wolf" (not accurate) or "Colossal Biosciences" (promotional). Having "alleged" or "claimed" in the title is also not a good solution. I agree with Synpath and think the best course of action would be to merge this article into the Colossal Biosciences one. The idea seems to be gaining traction, editing my comment for easier visibility. We can also merge the Woolly mouse article into it. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename Mergin would be a good idea too as long as i don't have to do it :) --Blockhaj (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge? Even the woolly mouse got an article. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we do the same there or the merge is bad idea. Blockhaj (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about creating an article titled "Colossal Biosciences De-Extinction Efforts" and just throw in the woolly mouse and the wolves in there? TurboSuperA+(connect) 13:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea as the woolly mouse and dire wolf are basically only related to the de-extinction effort solely led by Colossal. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That, i can also support, as long as i dont have to do it :P Blockhaj (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that too in the long run, we're not here to promote every single Colossal venture, but I think the suggestion is drowning here and needs its own section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for merging this page and woolly mouse to either Colossal Biosciences or new page on their deextinction efforts. We must remember that there are templates that anchor subsections and allow people to find them in the search bar Anthropophoca (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like this suggestion. I also Support this merge as probably the best way to handle this without being overly-promotional. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really do believe these two projects have too much information / independant significance to just be merged with colossal. Braedencapaul (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding a rename now that the paper is out, maybe something like "Revival of the dire wolf" or "dire wolf recreation efforts", similar to the revival of the woolly mammoth page? This page briefly mentions the first attempt from the 1980s to recreate the species through backbreeding, but not in depth like the past proposed methods on the woolly mammoth's page (direct cloning like Celia and artificial insemination) Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first i can support as an analog to Revival of the woolly mammoth, but then we need to emphasize other projects too. Blockhaj (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the two are the same, Revival of the woolly mammoth says "The revival of the woolly mammoth is a proposed hypothetical that frozen soft-tissue remains and DNA from extinct woolly mammoths could be a means of regenerating the species.", but the "dire wolves" of this article were not recreated from a DNA sample of a dire wolf. TurboSuperA+(connect) 17:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am sceptical of many things surrounding these animals, they did use a recovered dire wolf genome as the template for their modifications to the gray wolf genome. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't use any dire wolf DNA directly in the creation of these clones, they only used it as a reference as what to change in their genome. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As what everyone else stated here, no actual ancient dire wolf DNA was spliced into these animals, but Colossal used two genomes as "blueprints" to know which edits needed to be made to the grey wolf genome to approximate the dire wolf's genome. The mammoth's page also mentions past proposed methods that do not involve one-to-one cloning of a mummified specimen or splicing ancient DNA (artificial insemination and the current genome editing project). Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a backbreeding project in the 1980s to recreate the dire wolf, but I am not sure what more information can be said about it. On the de-extinction page, it states that its methodology is through backbreeding domesticated dogs but also mentions that it was not based in scientific method (similar to Heck cattle). Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support merger to Colossal Biosciences, if not for our notability guidelines allowing for "presumed" notability in view of significant coverage. I would wonder, however, if this topic would have had its own article had the likely premature proclamations of the sources that broke the news not been a factor in how this is presently being framed. Dholish (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merger into an article named "Colossal Biosciences De-Extinction Efforts", as proposed by TurboSuperA+. Hellokittypretty (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a merged article will ultimately baloon and have to be split. Better to keep the project separate from the start.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Hoax?

Given the extravagant claims of being the first Dire Wolf in 10,000 years despite having no dna of an Aenocyon, could this whole even be categorized as a hoax? UlthleCorone (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UlthleCorone not a hoax but fake news is possible, we will have to wait for their research papers to be published and peer reviewed. Blockhaj (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UlthleCorone: It's not a hoax, as three wolves were engineered. Though, it is misleading as they're simply modified grey wolves. Likewise, the mammoth resurrection is not to create an actual mammoth, but a hairy elephant. BOTTO (T•C) 08:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To call this a hoax we would need independent reliable sources to call it a hoax. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UlthleCorone It is extremely disingenuous to dismiss this as a hoax. So far, some independent sources have expressed scepticism and doubt over the genetics of these animals, but none have outright called it a hoax or "grift" like armchair palaeontologists on Reddit and Twitter.
There is a preprint about the genomes sequences and the results submitted for peer-review with the same people behind the 2021 paper coming out in the next few days. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the word used by Luigi Boitani for the Colossal scientists is "imbroglioni" (see here), which means "frauds"/"cheaters"/"hoaxers"/"fakers"/"swindlers" etc. Mariomassone (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One opinion piece is not enough to categorise this as hoax in the same manner as the Fiji mermaid. Maybe it can be included in the reception section regarding the animals not having any role to fulfil. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplified, Possibly Misleading Information in the Article

Although I'd argue it would be better to wait for the publication of Colossal's research before any further changes to the article, I will point out for posterity that some of the language used here might be misleading.

The extract "As dire wolves belonged to a completely different genus, Aenocyon, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are in fact genetically engineered grey wolves", presented at the very top of the page, ignores the fact the very paper from 2021 that reinstated dire wolves as belonging to Aenocyon, and not Canis, also suggested they could have been left as part of Canis since they form a monophyletic group, which would makes that a non-argument.

This also seems to be an unsourced opinion. Being "genetically modified gray wolves" is also not something that would exclude them from being dire wolves, if they were modified in all areas in which the two species differ.

Now, although it's maybe unexpected considering all I've written, I do personally agree with the conclusion of "these are Canis lupus and not Aenocyon dirus", considering, if all claims Colossal made are accurate, these are still by far mostly gray wolf in DNA, with only phenotype-altering genes modified. I do not, however, believe unpublished opinions have a place in this page to begin with, especially not before any of Colossal's papers are published. Feranogame (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the first statement at least, this would only be possible if you considered the entirety of Canina as Canis, otherwise it would not be monophyletic. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, "a completely different genus" is misleading. It suggests that genera are natural kinds.--MWAK (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on implying natural kinds, although its probably better to put the emphasis on the calibrated divergence time rather than them belonging to two different genera. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the taxonomic species of those wolves from Canis Lupus to Canis sp.

Genetist George McDonald Church has proposed that the different genetic phenotypes that those colossal wolves have is enough to consider them as a new species of wolf. Should these wolf be placed under the Genus and species Canis sp. or should they stay as Canis Lupus?

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/megafaunarewilding/s/5l8szm92Og Stmbus (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly nothing should be done on the basis of Reddit or Twitter posts. If there is a scientific consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, sure, but that would take years. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I agree we should wait for some time and wait for some research to conclude these are different species of wolves
For those who are interested
Tweet: https://x.com/geochurch/status/1910177654285742369?s=46
Research paper about the single gene speciation: https://www.nature.com/articles/425679a Stmbus (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
George Church is the one behind Colossal's woolly mammoth project. So, he is not entirely independent from this dire wolf project. I think this article still refers to them as Canis Lupis as a placeholder until more information and informed, independent opinions come out. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that a comment posted on Reddit constitutes a formal proposal for taxonomic reclassification. If Church believes that, let him propose it in a peer-reviewed article. 14.2.203.227 (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the fathers of modern wolf research speaks out

Here's a link to the relevant section of Luigi Boitani's wikiquote page (original source is behind a paywall): [1]. Don't know if it's worth adding, but I thought the opinion of the guy who basically jump-started modern wolf studies back in the 70s, alongside L. David Mech and Erik Zimen, might hold some weight. Mariomassone (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can maybe be added to the reception section regarding the animals having no role to fulfil currently. There was a section in earlier versions of this page, but it was removed due to being poorly written. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romulus,_Remus,_and_Khaleesi
Marcações: