Scientists: No, those are definitely not 'resurrected' dire wolves

Romulus and Remus are the names on everyone’s lips right now. These large, pale-furred canines, described by some as dire wolf lookalikes, have been heralded as living pieces of prehistory.

But some scientists say the hype is running far ahead of the facts.

Angela Perri from the Department of Archaeology at Durham University is urging caution about what these animals truly represent.

The pups in question may carry a handful of edits derived from ancient dire wolf DNA, but some researchers argue that’s not enough to call them real dire wolves.

Dire wolves were not true wolves

The dire wolf was a formidable carnivore that roamed parts of North and South America, eventually vanishing more than 10,000 years ago.

A 2021 study suggested it shared a common ancestor with wolves nearly 5.7 million years ago, which means modern gray wolves and dire wolves might be far less related than many believed.

Questions swirl around the label “wolf” itself. That older research hints that dire wolves were possibly closer to a giant form of coyote than to present-day gray wolves; challenging the idea that a few visual traits can define an animal’s species or evolutionary place.

Gene-edited pups resemble legends

Scientists at Colossal Biosciences used genetic editing to produce large canines resembling the old legends.

They extracted cells from gray wolves, modified certain genes, then implanted the resulting embryos into dog surrogates.

Romulus and Remus are big, display lighter fur, and exhibit some behaviors many associate with wild wolves.

Yet a growing chorus of experts wonders if these animals can truly fit the category of a species that split from living canids so long ago.

Scientists question dire wolf claims

Some observers claim the entire project creates a spectacle rather than a legitimate conservation tool. They see the repeated references to popular culture as a clever publicity move more than a scientific milestone.

Others question whether the presence of just 20 modified genes is enough to replicate all the key traits that made dire wolves unique.

One scientist famously asked if tinkering with a few genetic differences in a chimpanzee could ever make it human.

Edited pups aren’t dire wolves

Colossal’s announcement triggered debate over what it means to bring back a species. The company’s pups may look the part, but leading experts argue they fall short of true de-extinction.

According to paleogenomic data, the real dire wolf was so genetically distinct it may not have been a wolf at all – belonging instead to a now-extinct American lineage far removed from modern canids.

This raises serious doubts about whether editing a few dozen genes can recreate an organism with such a unique evolutionary history.

The physical similarities between gray wolves and dire wolves may come down to convergent evolution, not close ancestry.

Without addressing the deeper genomic divergence, the result may be more of a hybrid impersonation than a faithful revival.

Making new animals raises concerns

Beyond taxonomy, the ethics of creating new animals in the lab weigh heavily on critics. Cloning and genetic editing can lead to unpredictable results, including suffering for both offspring and surrogates.

Even with no miscarriages reported in this case, concerns remain about scaling the process, especially if it’s applied to more complex or sensitive species like elephants.

There’s also the matter of consent and quality of life. Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi may be healthy now, but their entire lives will be monitored, confined, and shaped by humans.

As more animals are created using similar methods, society will need to grapple with what responsibilities come with reviving dire wolf-like creatures that never asked to return.

Modern ecosystems may not cope

Raising a handful of designer canines in an enclosure might be more of a display than an ecological intervention.

The real dire wolf thrived in ancient environments that no longer exist. Releasing them into today’s ecosystems could cause more disruption than restoration.

Predators need large, stable territories and abundant prey. It’s unclear how modern habitats would handle a canine unlike current wolf species in size and hunting style.

Even in controlled reserves, their natural instincts might clash with confined, human-managed spaces.

Preserving vs resurrecting

Some conservationists push back on “bringing back” lost creatures like the dire wolf when existing species face urgent threats.

Many large predators are on the brink right now, which raises priorities about saving them first.

“We are an evolutionary force at this point,” stated Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer, pointing to the importance of innovative genetics.

She sees these methods as tools for protecting endangered populations rather than only a means of revival.

The commercial angle

Colossal Biosciences is valued at over ten billion dollars, and it’s branching into other genetic ventures. Observers note that money-making spinoffs could overshadow concerns about animal welfare or ecological impacts.

Related startups have tried to harness genetic advances to solve modern problems such as plastic breakdown or livestock breeding.

Critics say that resurrecting extinct species feels like a flashy sideshow that might distract from immediate biodiversity issues.

Science risks outpacing ethics

Skeptics acknowledge that advanced cloning or gene editing methods can sometimes boost endangered species by broadening the gene pool. But they also point out that no species is restored in a vacuum.

Legal, ecological, and ethical hurdles arise if these animals ever leave controlled facilities. Modern landscapes differ dramatically from ancient times, and artificially created predators might not fit comfortably into today’s ecosystems.

Future of gene-edited species unclear

The question of how to manage animals engineered from partial ancient genes remains a knotty one.

Colossal’s approach might evolve as more data emerges and more voices join the conversation. But for now, the line between innovation and overreach remains blurry.

Scientists like Angela Perri emphasize the need for deeper DNA analysis, more rigorous peer review, and a realistic look at ecological dynamics.

Only then can we decide if a newly minted wolf-like pup is truly close to the original dire wolf that once reigned.

Until then, calling it a resurrection might be more fiction than fact.

The study is published in Nature.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–