10,000 Year Old Frozen Mammoth Found Perfectly Preserved in Siberia

[Elimentals]

Young Mammoth Likely Butchered by Humans
The carcass of the juvenile "Yuka" may have been cut up, eaten and then buried by ancient people.

A juvenile mammoth, nicknamed "Yuka," was found entombed in Siberian ice near the shores of the Arctic Ocean and shows signs of being cut open by ancient people.

The remarkably well preserved frozen carcass was discovered in Siberia as part of a BBC/Discovery Channel-funded expedition and is believed to be at least 10,000 years old, if not older. If further study confirms the preliminary findings, it would be the first mammoth carcass revealing signs of human interaction in the region.

The carcass is in such good shape that much of its flesh is still intact, retaining its pink color. The blonde-red hue of Yuka's woolly coat also remains.

"This is the first relatively complete mammoth carcass -- that is, a body with soft tissues preserved -- to show evidence of human association," Daniel Fisher, curator and director of the University of Michigan's Museum of Paleontology, told Discovery News.

NEWS: Woolly Mammoth To Be Cloned

Fisher, who is also a professor, worked with an international team of experts to analyze Yuka. French mammoth hunter Bernard Buigues of the scientific organization "Mammuthus" saved the specimen from falling into the hands of private collectors.

Although carbon dating is still in the works, the researchers believe Yuka died at least 10,000 years ago, but may be much older. The animal was about 2 ½ years old when it died.
mammoths

Fisher described what likely happened on that fateful day:

"It appears that Yuka was pursued by one or more lions or another large field, judging from deep, unhealed scratches in the hide and bite marks on the tail," Fisher said. "Yuka then apparently fell, breaking one of the lower hind legs. At this point, humans may have moved in to control the carcass, butchering much of the animal and removing parts that they would use immediately.

"They may, in fact, have reburied the rest of the carcass to keep it in reserve for possible later use. What remains now would then be 'leftovers' that were never retrieved."

He explained that the removed parts include most of the main core mass of Yuka's body, including organs, vertebrae, ribs, associated musculature, and some of the meat from upper parts of the legs. The lower parts of each leg and the trunk remain intact.

Buigues added that it appears the humans were particularly interested in the animal's fat and its large bones, which they kept close to the body of the carcass. He believes it is possible that a ritual may have taken place involving the bones.

Kevin Campbell of the University of Manitoba also studied Yuka. Campbell famously published the genetic code of mammoth hemoglobin a few years ago.

"Most permafrost-preserved mammoth specimens consist solely of bones or bone fragments that currently provide little new insight into the species' biology in life, even if DNA can be extracted and sequenced from these samples," Campbell said. "This extremely rare finding of a near complete specimen, like the discovery of the baby mammoth Lyuba in 2007, will be a boon to researchers as it will help them link observed phenotypes (morphological features that we can see) with genotype (DNA sequences)."

Such information could help reveal whether or not mammoths had all of the same hair colors that humans do. An intriguing and controversial application would be to bring a mammoth back to life via cloning.

Campbell supports pursuit of that goal, saying it "may well lead to important new discoveries in bioengineering." Buigues is also in favor and said, "I'm not against having a mammoth in my garden in future."

Tim Walker, producer and director of a forthcoming BBC/Discovery Channel show called "Woolly Mammoth" that will feature Yuka, told Discovery News that cloning a mammoth could take years or even decades.

"Then, if it did happen, wouldn't a single mammoth be lonely and sad?" he asked. "They were, after all, communal animals."

Source Discovery Also Video Over at BBC

Woot, now clone the sucker..... So we can hunt it to extension for a second time.

 

[Keeper]

Awesome discovery!

how would the scientists clone it though, if there is no "mother" in which it can grow?
(or am I just being dumb here)

 

[Chevron]

Awesome discovery!

how would the scientists clone it though, if there is no "mother" in which it can grow?
(or am I just being dumb here)

If only we had a similar animal. Oh wait, we do. Elephants.

 

[HapticSimian]

Awesome discovery!

how would the scientists clone it though, if there is no "mother" in which it can grow?
(or am I just being dumb here)

 

[Keeper]

If only we had a similar animal. Oh wait, we do. Elephants.

sure but is its genome similar enough?

edit: okay people i'm not an idiot i know elephants exists, but it is another SPECIE people
thats like saying we can clone a prehistoric Basilosaurs because we have whales!!

 

[waynegohl]

Yeah they can put a woolen coat on an elephant so it looks like mum.

 

[Creag]

Wow. What a find.

 

[Elimentals]

sure but is its genome similar enough?

edit: okay people i'm not an idiot i know elephants exists, but it is another SPECIE people

You do know that cloning means?

To make a baby you need 2 parts of the DNA that makes up 1 full set that makes the cell replicate and grow. In cloneing you use one full DNA/RNA from the original to do this. So all you need is a surrogate that carry the infant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Methods

 

[HapticSimian]

sure but is its genome similar enough?

edit: okay people i'm not an idiot i know elephants exists, but it is another SPECIE people
thats like saying we can clone a prehistoric Basilosaurs because we have whales!!

Once you have the cloned embryo all you need is a surrogate. The genetic differences don't matter; no further genetic transfer takes place - you just need a suitable enough womb.

Remember Dolly the cloned sheep? Only 1 'parent' involved if I recall correctly.

PS - singular of species is still species.

 

[Elimentals]

Oooh found this gem in that wiki link re cloning.

Cloning extinct and endangered species

Cloning, or more precisely, the reconstruction of functional DNA from extinct species has, for decades, been a dream of some scientists. The possible implications of this were dramatized in the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton and high budget Hollywood thriller Jurassic Park. In real life, one of the most anticipated targets for cloning was once the Woolly Mammoth, but attempts to extract DNA from frozen mammoths have been unsuccessful, though a joint Russo-Japanese team is currently working toward this goal. And in January 2011, it was reported by Yomiuri Shimbun that a team of scientists headed by Akira Iritani of Kyoto University had built upon research by Dr. Wakayama, saying that they will extract DNA from a mammoth carcass that had been preserved in a Russian laboratory and insert it into the egg cells of an African elephant in hopes of producing a mammoth embryo. The researchers said they hoped to produce a baby mammoth within six years.[48]

In 2001, a cow named Bessie gave birth to a cloned Asian gaur, an endangered species, but the calf died after two days. In 2003, a banteng was successfully cloned, followed by three African wildcats from a thawed frozen embryo. These successes provided hope that similar techniques (using surrogate mothers of another species) might be used to clone extinct species. Anticipating this possibility, tissue samples from the last bucardo (Pyrenean Ibex) were frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately after it died in 2000. Researchers are also considering cloning endangered species such as the giant panda and cheetah. The "Frozen Zoo" at the San Diego Zoo now stores frozen tissue from the world's rarest and most endangered species.[49][50]

In 2002, geneticists at the Australian Museum announced that they had replicated DNA of the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger), at the time extinct for about 65 years, using polymerase chain reaction.[51] However, on February 15, 2005 the museum announced that it was stopping the project after tests showed the specimens' DNA had been too badly degraded by the (ethanol) preservative. On 15 May 2005 it was announced that the Thylacine project would be revived, with new participation from researchers in New South Wales and Victoria.

In January 2009, for the first time, an extinct animal, the Pyrenean ibex mentioned above was cloned, at the Centre of Food Technology and Research of Aragon, using the preserved DNA of the skin samples from 2001 and domestic goat egg-cells. (The ibex died shortly after birth due to physical defects in its lungs.) [52] One of the continuing obstacles in the attempt to clone extinct species is the need for nearly perfect DNA. Cloning from a single specimen could not create a viable breeding population in sexually reproducing animals. Furthermore, even if males and females were to be cloned, the question would remain open whether they would be viable at all in the absence of parents that could teach or show them their natural behavior.

Cloning endangered species is a highly ideological issue. Many conservation biologists and environmentalists vehemently oppose cloning endangered species—mainly because they think it may deter donations to help preserve natural habitat and wild animal populations. The "rule-of-thumb" in animal conservation is that, if it is still feasible to conserve habitat and viable wild populations, breeding in captivity should not be undertaken in isolation.

In a 2006 review, David Ehrenfeld concluded that cloning in animal conservation is an experimental technology that, at its state in 2006, could not be expected to work except by pure chance and utterly failed a cost-benefit analysis.[53] Furthermore, he said, it is likely to siphon funds from established and working projects and does not address any of the issues underlying animal extinction (such as habitat destruction, hunting or other overexploitation, and an impoverished gene pool). While cloning technologies are well-established and used on a regular basis in plant conservation, care must be taken to ensure genetic diversity. He concluded:

Vertebrate cloning poses little risk to the environment, but it can consume scarce conservation resources, and its chances of success in preserving species seem poor. To date, the conservation benefits of transgenics and vertebrate cloning remain entirely theoretical, but many of the risks are known and documented. Conservation biologists should devote their research and energies to the established methods of conservation, none of which require transgenics or vertebrate cloning.[53]

On the 7th of December 2011 it was announced that a team from the Siberian mammoth museum and Japan's Kinki University plan to clone a woolly mammoth from a well preserved sample of bone marrow found in August 2011. The team claim that the cloning could be complete within the next five years. However, others have expressed doubt about the feasibility of the experiment

 

[Keeper]

Thanks, that actually helps instead of trying to be sarcastic.

still though, dolly was still "created" in an ewe and not a Horse/Tiger.... do you guys have any links showing successful cloning in a cross-species scenario?

edit: ^ Thanks ^

 

[HapticSimian]

Thanks, that actually helps instead of trying to be sarcastic.

still though, dolly was still "created" in an ewe and not a Horse/Tiger.... do you guys have any links showing successful cloning in a cross-species scenario?

Mmmm, I see I was a bit off the mark with Dolly... 3 sheep were involved: a DNA donor, an egg donor and a surrogate. 1 into 2 into 3 pretty much:

2 types of sheep though.

 

[Picard]

I've got no qualms about bringing prehistoric creatures back to life.

The accidents in the movie Jurassic Park were foolish ones. I have the utmost confidence in our current scientists. Only good can come from resurrecting extinct animals.

 

[HapticSimian]

I've got no qualms about bringing prehistoric creatures back to life.

The accidents in the movie Jurassic Park were foolish ones. Only good can come from resurrecting extinct animals.

Yeah. Plus, I'll pay good money for a pet velociraptor. Although going back 65,000,000+ years might prove a little more tricky than 10,000.

 

[Elimentals]

I've got no qualms about bringing prehistoric creatures back to life.

The accidents in the movie Jurassic Park were foolish ones. I have the utmost confidence in our current scientists. Only good can come from resurrecting extinct animals.

The only problem I see is that you need way more than one host to actually bring them "back to life" so to speak. Sex will stay a problem if you only have one host doesnt matter how many babies you make.

Yeah. Plus, I'll pay good money for a pet velociraptor. Although going back 65,000,000+ years might prove a little more tricky than 10,000.

Stuff that, I would Love to bring back Mrs Pless so we can see if she can learn so we can learn more about ancient "humans"

 

[Keeper]

2 types of sheep though.

Yes, much like a mammoth is a type of elephant

 

[ponder]

Hoax, earth is only 6000 years old

 

[The_Unnamed]

Hoax, earth is only 6000 years old

^This. I call fake and gay! .

But on a serious note, thats an awesome find! Wonder what else lurks below the frozen depths... (Here hoping for GODZILLA!!)

 

[ponder]

On the 7th of December 2011 it was announced that a team from the Siberian mammoth museum and Japan's Kinki University plan to clone a woolly mammoth from a well preserved sample of bone marrow found in August 2011. The team claim that the cloning could be complete within the next five years

They should also clone Otzi the Iceman to hunt it and make a documentary about it!

 

[Picard]

They should also clone Otzi the Iceman to hunt it and make a documentary about it!

Wanted to say the same thing.

Also his DNA may be way different than ours today. Evolution might not always be a good thing. In which case his DNA might be beneficial to us.