Possibly, the Actitis hypoleucos, also referred as the Common sandpiper would most likely be a potential surrogate for the Numenius borealis. Based on the information provided, the Numenius borealis and the Actitis hypoleucos are closely related and are both in the same Family which is the Scolopacidae. Furthermore, both species prefer temperate locations and migrate during the winter and summer. Depending on the location, the Numenius borealis will not stay at their nest and care for their offspring, but the Actitis hypoleucos will always protect their offspring. For example, if a predator preyed on both species’ nests, it will have better luck with capturing the Numenius borealis off spring. On another note, the Actitis hypoleucos
…show more content…
Carl Zimmer, a TED presenter whom is not in favor for de-extinction states that, “De-extinction could possibly be worth examining, but where would we put the species?” Carl Zimmer states the pros, the cons and the outcome of de-extinction. Additionally, he talks about bringing the Red River Softshell turtle back, but if the turtle is brought back to life and put back in the same place it was originally from, the species will die off again. At first, I thought de-extinction was a good idea, but new species will face many problems because, their living conditions. Also, the impact on species that are brought back could possibly be a hazard for currently living species because, they could be invasive and make several species go …show more content…
The Numenius borealis became critically endangered because of hunting, agriculture and pollutants. On the contrary, I think the de-extinction tool for species surrounding the Numenius borealis would have more negative effects than positive. For example, scientists would focus on the new species and overlook endangered species that already exist. Furthermore, scientists should focus on how to replenish areas and make them more feasible for endangered species. There are many animal populations around the world that are dying off quickly and we should focus on them first. Additionally, if the de-extinction tool is used, many endangered species could become extinct. Thus, species that are brought back would be a distraction to the species that are currently living in areas and to endangered
Carl Zimmer, a TED presenter whom is not in favor for de-extinction states that, “De-extinction could possibly be worth examining, but where would we put the species?” Carl Zimmer states the pros, the cons and the outcome of de-extinction. Additionally, he talks about bringing the Red River Softshell turtle back, but if the turtle is brought back to life and put back in the same place it was originally from, the species will die off again. At first, I thought de-extinction was a good idea, but new species will face many problems because, their living conditions. Also, the impact on species that are brought back could possibly be a hazard for currently living species because, they could be invasive and make several species go …show more content…
The Numenius borealis became critically endangered because of hunting, agriculture and pollutants. On the contrary, I think the de-extinction tool for species surrounding the Numenius borealis would have more negative effects than positive. For example, scientists would focus on the new species and overlook endangered species that already exist. Furthermore, scientists should focus on how to replenish areas and make them more feasible for endangered species. There are many animal populations around the world that are dying off quickly and we should focus on them first. Additionally, if the de-extinction tool is used, many endangered species could become extinct. Thus, species that are brought back would be a distraction to the species that are currently living in areas and to endangered