Talk:Dire wolf

direwolf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that this article remains about the Dire wolf (Canis dirus) and should not be confused with the direwolf (note the one-word name) that relates to the series of novels forming A Song of Ice and Fire and the television series Game of Thrones. Editors wanting to contribute to the direwolf topic are referred to those articles. Any edits to this Dire wolf page regarding the direwolf will be removed. Please vote either YES or NO. William Harris • talk • 10:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• YES I wholeheartedly agree with this.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• YES I agree, though I'm pretty sure direwolf will be redirected to some GOT related list, and not remain a separate article for long. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• YES Strebe (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The consensus WP:CONS is full support for this proposal. It is now implemented. William Harris • talk • 04:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal - change of genus: Canis →Aenocyon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that the genus of the direwolf be changed in this article from Canis to Aenocyon based on the findings of a major genetic study, which suggests that they are a separate lineage to genus Canis and proposes the older (1918) genus name of Aenocyon. Study found at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03082-x (with publicly available news report found at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dire-wolves-were-not-really-wolves-new-genetic-clues-reveal/) William Harris (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - it seems well-supported, and even in the unlikely event it gets overturned, it doesn't affect the article's title, so is easy to change. FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - ditto Mariomassone (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, though we can’t assume that consensus among experts has, or will, happen. I merely believe such consensus will be forthcoming and therefore support verbiage explaining that the results are too new to be considered ‘fact’. Strebe (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus WP:CONS is full support for this proposal. William Harris (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canis vs Aenocyon (Dog vs Terrible Dog)

I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about how the whole taxonomic system works, but I do know that if you want to change peoples' minds, you need to put it in their faces, ie. newspaper ads, magazine covers, billboards, and more recently, Google searches. I saw it discussed here, after or when it had been done, that the infobox had been changed to Aenocyon. Now, do a Google search of Canis dirus dirus and look at the results, in particular the sidebar or, if you will, the infobox. Wikipedia may not consider itself a reliable source, but a good portion of the rest of the world does. By allowing the change to stand, even though the experts still haven't reached a consensus, means we have now violated WP:CRYSTAL. One of you Guardians of the Sciences should address this: I'm not that bold, and I'm likely to screw it up.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 15:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Since it's not really controversial, it's fairly standard to follow such revisions here. In case a future DNA study finds fault with the last one, we'll just change the article accordingly, wouldn't be the first time. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Well, I'm writing for an online story site (nope, not sharing that), and as part of my research I'm investigating the dire wolf (sabertooth, too). That's why I got to here and saw the discussions. The article confused me and now I see why. That said, another site I went to, the San Diego Wildlife Alliance Library, doesn't even mention Aenocyon, and it was last updated March 2021. See where I'm going? Should we be embracing this change so quickly? Everywhere else is either strictly Canis or they're hedging and saying Canis/Aenocyon. And there's my two pence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myk Streja (talk • contribs)

Why would the San Diego Wildlife Alliance Library be a relevant authority for animals that became extinct ten thousand years ago? While for living (and to a lesser extent, recently extinct) animals Wikipedia defers to external authorities for classification, for extinct animals the taxonomy is essentially based on whatever happens to be the prevailing name used. Genetic results are typically more reliable than morphological results because they are not subject to homoplasy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure the website of a zoo would even be up to date with the latest palaeontological research anyway, so not particularly relevant. And if you look at the page's citations, the newest is from 2010, so it's not like they've taken a stand on this issue at all, it just relies on decade old sources. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The key point is that the genus Aenocyon has been proposed (reinstated?) by 50 evolutionary biologists, and nobody has rebutted it. Therefore, it is not contentious and to claim that "the experts still haven't reached a consensus" is rebutted on the facts. William Harris (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Previous Discussions of Calibrated Radiocarbon Dating

@Strebe I should’ve mentioned this in the edit comments, but the changes I made were ones that @FunkMonk, @Hemiauchenia, and I agreed to in the Columbian mammoth talk page. The radiocarbon dates in the 20th and early 21st century dates are uncalibrated, an issue that is addressed by the more accurate calibrated radiocarbon dates as for instance discussed in the edit history for Megalonyx. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid: Sounds good. Your edits left in place citations that contradict the edits, so we would need to find suitable replacements. Besides the dates, there is count of extinct megafauna genera, for example. Obviously Stuart is reliable, but if there is controversy remaining among experts, we should be careful about relying on a single reference. Strebe (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Canis

It would appear that some paleobiologists are not buying the paleogeneticists re-classification to genus Aenocyon, based on the latest paper here.
We need to keep in mind that Perri et al 2021 did not reveal which of the two mutation rates often used by wolf geneticists was used to give a date of genetic divergence of 5.7 million years ago. The dating may be out by a factor of x2, with the possibility that the age is actually 2.8 million years - which puts the dire wolf straight back into genus Canis once again. Time will tell. 14.2.192.61 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't even attempt to refute that study nor do they comment on its results, so saying they aren't "buying into it" is an overstatement. FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This particular group of researchers classified dirus as genus Canis and not Aenocyon is all that I am highlighting. 14.2.192.61 (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

De-extinction coverage

Thread retitled from "OH MY SCIENCE ITS BACK FROM EXTINCTION".

OH MY GOD!!!!

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-07/-de-extinction-startup-with-10-billion-valuation-revives-dire-wolf
• https://time.com/7274542/colossal-dire-wolf/

2A02:CB80:4140:67F2:4DB9:CAFD:EBB5:BAC0 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

If some digging I've found is right, these canids, are, at the moment, basically mixes as opposed to true clones. A grey wolf with some DNA from dire wolves. Nungimelheshin (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That being said, even with them being mixes alone could lead to lots of advances in genetics, not just cloning the dead. Nungimelheshin (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

They seem to be hybrids at best. What seems much more likely is that they simply constitute GMO-grey wolves. As far as I can tell can tell, they are simply wolves that have been modified to have a larger, more muscular build along with a thicker and whiter coat, and I doubt if these new pups contain any actual Aenocyon DNA in them. Aenocyon dirus was not closely related to wolves, and so this by no means "de-extincts" it. While it is incredibly cool and exciting, this new project by Colossal does not bring the dire wolf back to life. Trajectory1521 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Well actually my dad lived with dire wolves and he said that they looked exactly like this, idk what ur talking about 2A02:CB80:4140:67F2:4DB9:CAFD:EBB5:BAC0 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Colossal Biosciences recently made headlines by announcing the world’s first successful de-extinction of dire wolves, marking a historic moment in genetic science and conservation. The company revealed the birth of three genetically engineered dire wolf pups—Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi—created using cutting-edge CRISPR gene-editing technology. By analyzing ancient DNA from 13,000- and 72,000-year-old dire wolf fossils, scientists identified and edited 20 key genes across 14 loci in the gray wolf genome, targeting traits that defined the dire wolf, such as its massive size, powerful musculature, broader skull, and thick fur adapted to colder climates. These edited genomes were used in cloning, with domestic dogs serving as surrogate mothers to carry the embryos to term. The pups were born healthy and are currently being raised in a secure, undisclosed natural preserve, where scientists are monitoring their behavior, development, and ecological impact.

This breakthrough represents a major leap forward in de-extinction science, with Colossal applying similar strategies to other projects involving the woolly mammoth and dodo. However, the revival of the dire wolf also brings complex questions: Are these animals truly "dire wolves" or modern hybrids with some dire traits? What responsibilities do we have when reintroducing long-lost species into today’s ecosystems, which have evolved in their absence? And how do we ensure their welfare and ecological balance? While Colossal frames the project as a way to advance conservation tools and genetic rescue, critics caution against the unknowns and potential unintended consequences of bringing extinct apex predators back into the wild. Regardless, the successful birth of these pups has turned science fiction into science fact—and opened a new chapter in the story of life on Earth. 2A02:CB80:4140:67F2:4DB9:CAFD:EBB5:BAC0 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim from Colossal is that they “rewrote” the wolf genes that differed from dire wolf to match dire wolf’s. The populist articles make it sound like they rewrote all of them that differed, meaning, the new animals have the same DNA as a dire wolf. Where that leaves the situation for alleles that are prevalent in one species but not the other is not answered by these articles, but the limited number of genes they modified could not have produced a dire wolf that would have existed in the wild, and almost certainly would have fitness deficiencies in the wild beyond just the loss of cultural transmission. The article shouldn’t give credence to the de-extinction claim until some sort of scientific consensus emerges as to what these creatures add up to. Strebe (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You're totally right to question the framing around Colossal’s work, and I think your skepticism is exactly what’s needed in discussions like these. The term "rewriting" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and you nailed it when you pointed out that most popular science articles gloss over the nuances in favor of clean, headline-friendly declarations like “the dire wolf is back.”

But let’s unpack that claim a bit, because even if they rewrote every wolf gene that differs from the dire wolf version (which they didn’t), that still wouldn’t result in a genome that’s functionally equivalent to a true dire wolf. Why? Because the genome is far more than the sum of its coding regions. There are non-coding regulatory elements, epigenetic factors, structural genomic arrangements, and even ancient viral insertions that may have played a role in the original dire wolf’s physiology and behavior—all of which are not being touched in this editing process.

And then there’s the matter of alleles, which you brought up—absolutely key. Even if a gene is edited to "match" the dire wolf’s sequence, we’re still not addressing population-level genetic diversity. A resurrected dire wolf built from a single set of edited alleles is essentially a genetic monoculture. That’s not even close to the level of complexity and adaptability found in a wild, breeding population. It’s like trying to revive a language by reconstructing a single sentence. Where’s the variation? The nuance? The flexibility that allows the species to adapt to changing pressures?

And that ties perfectly into your point about fitness deficiencies. There’s almost no way a creature with a stitched-together genome, developed in a domestic dog surrogate and raised in a controlled preserve, will have the resilience or instinctual behavior necessary for survival in the wild. Cultural transmission—pack hunting strategies, territory marking, social cues, prey targeting—those aren’t hardcoded in the genome; they’re learned, and that learning happens over generations. You can’t clone a behavioral ecosystem.

So the real danger here, as you suggested, is that the narrative is outpacing the science. By the time the academic consensus even starts to form around what these animals actually are (genetically, behaviorally, ecologically), the public has already absorbed the message: “Dire wolves are back.” That’s a powerful story, but a potentially misleading one.

I’d argue that instead of calling this de-extinction, we should be framing it as something closer to synthetic paleo-design—a mix of bioengineering and educated guesswork inspired by extinct species. It's more Jurassic Park-meets-Biopunk than literal resurrection.

So yeah, let’s definitely keep pushing for more transparency and more cautious framing, especially before we assign words like “revival” or “reintroduction” to what is, at best, a biological prototype with only partial resemblance to the original species.

Would be curious to hear what you think qualifies as the scientific threshold for calling something truly “de-extinct.” Is it full genomic restoration? Viable wild reproduction? Behavioral replication? Or something else entirely? 2A02:CB80:4140:67F2:4DB9:CAFD:EBB5:BAC0 (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Excellent point about non-coding DNA. I haven’t developed a strong idea of what “true” de-extinction looks like, but I think whatever refinements we make in using genomics to distinguish between species (or determine that they are the same) should be applied here as well. Thanks to the abundance of preserved genetic material, we could create a representative full genome of fossil dire wolves and use the same criteria we use to distinguish between modern species in order to confirm or refute that a modern recreation of the animal is, indeed, the “same” animal. By this, I mean the complete genome, including non-coding, which is not really done yet (as I understand it) because it hasn’t been needed. Functioning in the wild would be the acid test after that, but I don’t think it’s necessary: We have species that are extinct in the wild, but the remaining individuals are still members of the species. Possibly some are consigned to zoos for an eternity because we can’t rewild them. It’s certainly hard to imagine rewilding a dire wolf: the ecosystems it functioned under don’t exist anymore, and humans barely tolerate wolves as it is. Strebe (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s a fantastic point about species identification, and I’m really glad you brought up both the limitations of current genomic practices and the idea that we should be applying the same rigor we use to distinguish between living species to any claims of de-extinction. Because really, this whole field is forcing us to re-evaluate the very foundations of how we define life, continuity, and identity—scientifically, biologically, and even philosophically.

You’re absolutely right that most genomic comparisons today don’t go far beyond coding regions unless there’s a functional reason to do so. We’re only just beginning to scratch the surface of the massive landscape of non-coding DNA, and what’s wild is that this so-called “junk” may actually hold the key to why an extinct animal like the dire wolf wasn’t just a big, scary version of a gray wolf, but something truly distinct. Regulatory sequences in non-coding regions govern the when, where, and how of gene expression. These differences can result in entirely unique anatomical structures, neurological wiring, developmental timing, and even behavioral tendencies. It’s the difference between having the same list of musical notes versus playing a completely different symphony.

So, if we’re serious about calling something a “de-extincted” species, we should be aiming to recreate not just the notes, but the full performance—including the dynamics, tempo, and orchestration that made the original species what it was. Otherwise, we risk creating biologically impressive facsimiles that may share superficial similarities but diverge significantly at the levels that actually matter for identity and function.

You make a great point that thanks to the sheer abundance of preserved dire wolf remains—especially from places like the La Brea Tar Pits—we may be uniquely positioned to attempt this. If we could gather genomic data from a large enough sample size, we could, in theory, reconstruct a population-level genetic profile of dire wolves, allowing us to understand both the “core” genome and the natural allelic diversity they exhibited. That would be a game-changer, because it would give us a benchmark against which to measure any synthetic recreation. Is the engineered genome within the range of variation of actual dire wolves? Does it match not just the average, but also the extremes of what we know the species was capable of? These are questions we could begin to answer with a large enough dataset.

And then there’s the question of behavior, which is so often overlooked in the excitement about genetic precision. Even with a perfectly reconstructed genome—coding and non-coding—we’re still dealing with an animal raised in a completely different context. Behavior isn’t just hardwired; it’s deeply shaped by early experiences, environmental stimuli, social interactions, and intergenerational learning. Wolves are incredibly intelligent, social creatures. Their hunting strategies, pack hierarchies, vocalizations, and even how they raise pups involve a level of cultural transmission that no CRISPR tool can replicate. Rebuilding the genome is one thing—rebuilding the mind of a dire wolf, shaped by thousands of years of Ice Age survival, is another challenge entirely.

That’s where your point about functionality in the wild as an "acid test" becomes really compelling. I agree that it's not the only metric that matters. Just because something can’t be released into the wild doesn’t mean it’s not authentic. As you noted, we already have species like the Père David’s deer, Spix's macaw, and several amphibians that exist only in captivity. They’re still members of their species despite being ecological refugees, held in limbo between existence and extinction. So maybe our bar for de-extinction shouldn’t be “Can it survive in the wild?” but rather “Is it genomically and phenotypically indistinguishable from the extinct population, to the best of our ability?”

Of course, the problem is that in the case of the dire wolf, the ecological context it evolved in is so profoundly gone that even a perfectly recreated specimen might not find a niche to fill. The megafauna are gone. The prey species are different. The terrain is altered, and the climate has shifted. Even if we built a 1:1 genetic match, what would it do in 2025? Slot awkwardly into a conservation park like a biological theme park exhibit? Spend its days being studied, but never truly “living” as its ancestors did?

And then there’s the human component. As you mentioned, people already struggle with accepting the reintroduction of gray wolves—animals that are genetically and ecologically vital, but politically controversial. What happens when you reintroduce a creature that people perceive as even more threatening or foreign? Even if dire wolves pose no more danger than a modern wolf (and arguably less, if they lack the learned behavior needed to hunt efficiently), perception becomes reality in the public discourse.

So maybe the goal of these projects isn’t rewilding, or even restoration. Maybe it’s about creating a living proof-of-concept—a demonstration of what biotechnology can do, not just to conserve but to reconstruct. Maybe these animals are not wild creatures in the traditional sense, but biological time capsules, bridging the gap between past and present, giving us a glimpse into ecosystems long gone and the genomic blueprints of ancient life.

But that brings us full circle to the ethical question: just because we can do this, should we? What responsibilities do we have to these new-old beings? Are we their creators or their custodians? And how do we ensure we’re not just playing with deep time like it’s a sandbox, with no plan for what happens once we resurrect these ghosts?

Would really love to hear your take on the ethical implications. Do you think there's a “moral minimum” we should meet before calling something de-extinct—like a commitment to lifelong care, habitat recreation, or cultural reconstruction? Or is scientific value on its own enough justification for creating these organisms? 2A02:CB80:4140:67F2:4DB9:CAFD:EBB5:BAC0 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that when individual fossils are identified as belonging to a particular species, none of those above criteria are considered. Is there any reason to consider them in this case? Asgrrr (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

May I request that the line "Two specimens have been revived" be revised to something more along the lines of "On April 8th, 2025, two specimens of a modern Dire Wolf were claimed to have been created by (so-and-so) labs, utilizing CRISPR to encode Dire Wolf genes into common Grey Wolves? 2600:8807:C2C0:29:C9C3:E7D2:D8E9:A3CE (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

in my opinion, i think these "dire wolves" should be considered new species of the dire wolf genus instead of directly being the same one as the dire wolf from the pleistocene, since it isnt 100% a dire wolf and has DNA from the grey wolf Stmbus (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

In the Time article, it claims that Colossal changed 14 out the roughly 19 000 genes in the Canis lupus genome to produce the three pups. If all of this was Aenocyon dirus DNA, it would mean that 0.07% of their genome was of dire wolf origin. I do not think having changed 14 genes from Canis lupus would make this a new species. And that would be the optimistic viewpoint. It doesn't seem as if there is any information (currently) on specifically what and how they changed it, so they may have simply changed some Canis lupus DNA to express some dire wolf features, which would absolutely not make it part of the Aenocyon genus. If there is new information that I have missed that contradicts my statements, please inform me of it and share it with me. Trajectory1521 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I see your point. However we need their statement as to how many % of DNA from Aenocyon dirus is used to make these wolves.

We'll see where this evolves into. Stmbus (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

About the 14 genes changed, they claimed that they did 20 edits to a gray wolf embryo across 14 genes. 15 of these edits are identical to DNA found in dire wolves. The other 5 are edits that lead to key dire wolf traits, which, they claim they know from studying their genome and fossils.

https://www.reddit.com/r/deextinction/comments/1jtn36h/comment/mlvw8t8/?context=3 Stmbus (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a good breakdown of what Colossal said, but it opens up a ton of fascinating questions that go beyond the surface. So, if they made 20 edits across 14 genes in a gray wolf embryo—15 of which are identical to dire wolf DNA and 5 of which are predictive edits based on fossil interpretation and comparative genomics—that still leaves us in this weird limbo between de-extinction and synthetic biology. Like, are we actually looking at a “resurrected” dire wolf, or is this more of a "neo-wolf" hybrid with carefully selected traits we think represent dire wolves?

Because here’s the thing: even if the edits match sequences found in fossil DNA, that’s only a tiny sliver of what made a dire wolf a dire wolf. We’re talking about editing maybe 0.1%–0.5% of the genome at best. The rest of the dire wolf's genome—non-coding regions, regulatory sequences, epigenetic markers, gene expression patterns under Ice Age environmental pressures—all of that is still largely unknown or absent. The organism resulting from these edits may look like a dire wolf in certain ways (size, skull shape, fur thickness, etc.), but without the full genomic context, it’s really more of a best-guess facsimile.

Also, those 5 edits that aren't directly copied from dire wolf DNA? That’s wild. It means Colossal is venturing into speculative genetic design, where they're taking fossil morphology and trying to reverse-engineer the genetics behind it. That's not necessarily bad—it’s super innovative—but it blurs the line between scientific restoration and creative interpretation. It’s like trying to rebuild a dinosaur from chicken DNA and fossil bones: even if you get something that looks the part, it may behave, metabolize, or reproduce completely differently from the original.

And there’s another layer too: gene expression is highly context-dependent. Just because you drop a gene into a genome doesn’t mean it’s going to express the same way it did in a Pleistocene environment. These dire wolf traits could show up differently in the modern biological framework of a gray wolf-derived embryo. Environmental interaction, gene-gene interactions (epistasis), and random mutation over generations all contribute to how traits actually appear in the organism.

So the real question is: what are we actually reviving here? A dire wolf? A new sub-species of gray wolf with retrofitted features? Or a kind of conceptual homage to the dire wolf built from modern building blocks?

Either way, I’m not knocking what Colossal did—it’s incredible work. But I think it’s important we don’t conflate phenotypic resemblance with full biological resurrection. A museum replica and the original artifact might look the same at a glance, but under the microscope—or in a living ecosystem—they’re not interchangeable.

Would love to hear your thoughts on how you see the line between revival and recreation. Do you think this qualifies as a “true” de-extinction, or is it something else entirely? 2A02:CB80:4140:67F2:4DB9:CAFD:EBB5:BAC0 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve requested page protection for this article. What is clear is that this is not a de-extinction. It is a “rewriting” of a limited number of wolf genes to give it characteristics of a dire wolf. Any mention of this sensationalist news needs to get hashed out here. Strebe (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Did they also make an albino one and name it Ghost? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

They're all completely white and they named the female Khaleesi, so almost (regrettably). The Morrison Man (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

These are not "true" dire wolves. these are "dire wolves" with grey wolf dna.

In my opinion, i think there should be a new Wikipedia page about these dire wolves, since i consider them to be more of a new specie of dire wolves than true dire wolves Stmbus (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Pretty Interesting to have them as a New Species! 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:78C1:5E1E:A0FE:7EBF (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is what I'm thinking. This article shouldn't be changed, but a new one should be made for this new generation of Dire Wolves. 2600:387:C:6D17:0:0:0:6 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I would personally wait for the opinion of a taxonomist (or perhaps a hundred) before classifying them as a new species. Trajectory1521 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, until them we should still considers them "grey wolves" with Dire wolf DNA Stmbus (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

From the articles, it would seem that there's no actual DNA from Aenocyon dirus present in these... things. They modified a tiny percentage of the genes of a modern grey wolf, whose last common ancestor with Aenocyon occured 5 million years ago, and probably just slapped the name Dire Wolf on it to appeal to the public. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

If there are no actual dire wolf DNA in them, then I don't see why this even deserves mention in this article to begin with. Mr Fink (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A direct quote from the article in The Hollywood Reporter: "no ancient dire wolf DNA was actually spliced into the gray wolf's genome.". This fact is already mentioned in the short bit of text currently included in the article, which I think is fine. Something with this much media attention is better off being addressed dismissively than left out, because people will add it anyways.

Perhaps the bigger question is the tone of the article thats already been made for the three animals, but that's a topic for that talk page and not for this one. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that we should wait for organisations like the IUCN to decide the taxonomy of these animals before making a "Colossal's dire wolf" or significantly revamping this page. Similar animals such as the Norfolk boobook hybrids are still treated as the original species by EPBC. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Important note : a dedicated article has already been created at Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi (dire wolves). Maybe it would be worth examinating. Larrayal (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Another thing I don't see anyone has noted so far: the white color is stated to be from a completely unrelated dog gene. It's supposedly meant to approximate a "real" gene for pale coloration in dire wolves, which was eschewed since it also correlates with blindness and deafness. The catch is that there is no elaboration of what that gene actually is, beyond Beth Shapiro's hearsay. She is framed as a leading expert on dire wolf DNA, but she was only one of about 50 authors on the 2021 study which removed the species from Canis. NGPezz (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Started up a topic on that talk page. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Stating " It has allegedly been revived" at the end of the article's opening does not seem acceptable to me, given this is a developing story shrouded in uncertainty and disagreement and the statement made lacks any immediately-present context. Endorsing its removal or, failing that, alteration. TheOwlGuy (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I would also support its removal. Too soon to make any calls on this as we only have newspaper articles and no scientific backing for the case. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree this sentence should be removed from the opening paragraph. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I also support its removal. Not only is this a developing story with (so far) nothing that can be scientifically assessed, it's a vague and unhelpful sentence that would need to be altered anyways.

As for whether Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi should be considered "dire wolves" for the purpose of this article, I would suggest an approach similar to the quagga. The Quagga Project is, like Colossal's "dire wolves", an attempt to revive the phenotype via modification of an extant relative. The quagga article avoids saying that it has been revived; only that a quagga-like phenotype has been bred back. The same applies here: 15 modified genes does not replicate a dire wolf genotype, and whether they will match the dire wolf phenotype remains unknown. They are genetically modified gray wolves and, as outlined by the IUCN, proxies of an extinct species. Shuvuuia (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate Carl Zimmer's writeup in the New York Times: "Scientists Revive the Dire Wolf, or Something Close." Summarizing the ancient DNA project findings, the piece states that dire wolves are >99% genetically identical to modern gray wolves and that 80 genes are "dramatically distinct" between the two genomes. Colossal identified 20 genes to edit and ended up only introducing the dire wolf sequence for 15 of these. So they did not even introduce all of the known genomic differences into these pups, not to mention all the other reasons discussed above for not credulously accepting Colossal's framing. I'm just sharing this link to add to the above discussion. It's not up to us to determine what qualifies as de-extinction. I agree that we should wait for appropriate scientific bodies to weigh in on this before making a declaration on Wikipedia. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Untill scientific bodies weigh in, it would probably be best to present the information provided in the coverage and leave the question of whether this is truly "de-extinction" as a maybe. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A pre-reviewed paper is said to come soon like the woolly mouse. However, I think that there should be an invisible note regarding that information about the revival and genomes should not be on the article until the paper is published, Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2025

"Romulus and Remus and two-month-old female Khalees". Khaleesi is missing the 'i' at the end of the name SavAla17 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Accepted; I've edited as such. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we still list this species as extinct?

After efforts from colossal biosciences these species have been reintroduced, should we still list it as extinct? Raggedrogue (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

See the lengthy discussion above. We'd need a lot more independent sources, confirming wide acceptance of the de-extinction by experts, before going that far - a listing by the IUCN would be good, although not essential. Anaxial (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

We need to wait for the peer-reviewed paper to come out along with more sources. A somewhat similar case to this is quagga, a proxy has been recreated in modern times, but its article still treats it as extinct due to the animals from the Quagga Project not widely being considered members of the taxon. Although, quagga was through backbreeding as opposed to cloning and genome editing like this dire wolf project. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

But should we not add what we already have on this discussion to the page?

The question of whether the species de-extinct or not deserve attention in the page I would think. 176.230.114.60 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

An animal that has simply genetically modified dire wolf characteristics to be added to the distantly related gray wolf cannot be called a dire wolf itself, and it has not been reintroduced. Similar case is Aurochs, while there are cows represented similar morphology, they are not aurochs themselves and it is still listed extinct. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• No, a wolf that has been slightly modified to physically resemble what a dire wolf may have looked like does not mean the dire wolf is not extinct. It does not have dire wolf DNA. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  They claim the Grey Wolf has 99.5% shared DNA with the Dire Wolves. To my knowledge, using DNA from a 13,000 year old and a 72,000 year old fossils they were able to figure out what the Dire Wolf DNA looked like. Using this, they edited the 0.5% of the DNA to match that of the Dire wolf. I feel like saying they absolutely cannot be Dire Wolves because they didn't splice in Dire Wolf DNA is not the right way to think about this. If I programmed code that looked exactly like someone else's code and the results of the code are the same, is it not the exact same code? They looked at the "code" of the Grey Wolf and the "code" of the Dire Wolf, edited the Grey Wolf Code to match that of the Dire Wolf, and the result was a Dire Wolf.

  Although I would like to see the peer reviewed paper and how the scientific community feels about it, I would say if everything I said above is true, they are definitely Dire Wolves. 45.26.246.25 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

  To the best of my understanding, they took two wolf isolated subfossils (mark it, wolf subfossil), deemed it was direwolfy enough (given the alleged material used, might as well have been Canidae indet. material for what we now), decided to clone it based on god knows what since nothing is published publicaly anyway, also cloned a few red wolves while they were at it, and somehow decided that their finding, which goes pretty much against a decade of knowledge about the relationships between A. dirus and modern wolves, were good enough to clone shit up. Also consider that wolves, be them white or grey, are born with dark fur, unless of skin defect (which again those don't have because albinism or leucism would be a huge issue for investors). For them to be white at birth, it means that there is an undisclosed admixture of dog within them. And don't pull the "being white is a dire wolf thing" : while I can believe the DNA testing for color wasn't erroneous, since the remains would have been deposited at the feet of an ice sheet, it remains that dire wolves came from the south, like wolves, and probably gave birth during the early spring, like wolves, in which case a white fur would have been a huge hindrance. healthy white grey wolves in the wild are rare for a reason. Also it looks a bit too much like the wolf from Game of Thrones so I wouldn't even be surprised if that one was involved too in the cloning process. In other word, they're a genetic mess, but probably more in the normal wolf kind of mess.

  If I took your DNA, compared it with a chimp, then started hacking the chimp DNA to make it vaguely look like yours, so that it stands upright, is mostly bald with your hair colour, and is slightly larger, to the point that it would look superficially like a human (but still have, for what we know, the behaviour of a clinically insane chimp begging to be put down due to various dramatic organ failures), would you A) call him your little human brother, or B) call pest control ? Larrayal (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2025

I would like to suggest a change to the dire wolf page on the first paragraph where it says dire wolves are an extinct species, as a company named colossus I believe have successfully bought back the previously extinct species. So I would like to edit the line of “extinct species to previously extinct species” 60.240.229.124 (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: see above, ongoing discussion regarding this Cannolis (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Updating "C. dirus" to "A. dirus" in "Morphological evidence"

Based on previous discussions, it seems safe to assume that Aenocyon is well accepted for the genus of this species (the last dispute was in 2023 and wasn't considered relevant). In the "Morphological evidence" section of the article, there are multiple mentions to "C. dirus", which I believe should be "A. dirus". It currently makes the article slightly confusing since "C. dirus" is exclusively mentioned historically in the "Taxonomy" section.

Specifically, my suggested changes are:

Paragraphs:

• From: [...] proposed that C. dirus was not derived [...]
• To: [...] proposed that A. dirus was not derived [...]

• From: [...] sudden appearance of C. dirus in North America [...]
• To: [...] sudden appearance of A. dirus in North America [...]

• From: [...] had given rise to the C. dirus hypermorph [...]
• To: [...] had given rise to the A. dirus hypermorph [...]

• From: [...] propose that C. dirus evolved from [...]
• To: [...] propose that A. dirus evolved from [...]

• From: [...] diverging into C. dirus.
• To: [...] diverging into A. dirus.

• From: [...] produced C. armbrusteri and C. dirus.
• To: [...] produced C. armbrusteri and A. dirus.

• From: In 2010 Francisco Prevosti proposed that C. dirus was a [...]
• To: In 2010 Francisco Prevosti proposed that A. dirus was a [...]

• From: C. dirus lived in the Late Pleistocene [...]
• To: A. dirus lived in the Late Pleistocene [...]

• From: [...] there are disputed specimens of C. dirus that date to [...]
• To: [...] there are disputed specimens of A. dirus that date to [...]

• From: [...] specimens of C. dirus discovered at four sites [...]
• To: [...] specimens of A. dirus discovered at four sites [...]

• From: [...] morphological characteristics of both C. armbrusteri and C. dirus, he referred [...]
• To: [...] morphological characteristics of both C. armbrusteri and A. dirus, he referred [...]

• From: [...] he referred to them only as C. dirus.
• To: [...] he referred to them only as A. dirus.
(I'm a bit unsure about this one specifically, since it is related to historical context)

• From: [...] of South Dakota may possibly be C. dirus;
• To: [...] of South Dakota may possibly be A. dirus;

• From: [...] and C. dirus share some characteristics [...]
• To: [...] and A. dirus share some characteristics [...]

• From: The fossil record suggests C. dirus originated around [...]
• To: The fossil record suggests A. dirus originated around [...]

• From: The first appearance of C. dirus would therefore [...]
• To: The first appearance of A. dirus would therefore [...]

• From: In South America, C. dirus specimens [...]
• To: In South America, A. dirus specimens [...]

• From: One study found that C. dirus was more [...]
• To: One study found that A. dirus was more [...]

• From: [...] some researchers have proposed that C. dirus may have originated [...]
• To: [...] some researchers have proposed that A. dirus may have originated [...]

• From: Later studies concluded that C. dirus and [...]
• To: Later studies concluded that A. dirus and [...]

• From: [...] and that C. dirus had migrated [...]
• To: [...] and that A. dirus had migrated [...]

Sorry if my formatting isn't helpful. I've been watching for long but never interacted before. Pablohildo (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Cladograms are basically quotes from papers, so shouldn't be changed, but updated with newer ones. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Noted! I removed the references to the cladograms. What do you think about the other changes, though? Pablohildo (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)