Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Firm develops Tasmanian tiger DNA detector

Recommended Posts

 
Jon the frog

How long a sample would be tested positive ? Thylacine presence was not that far ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42

Unlike Bigfoot, Nessie, Chupacabra, etc. Thylacines were/are actually real. I hope we can find out they're still around, but I won't hold my breath...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
4 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

How long a sample would be tested positive ? Thylacine presence was not that far ago...

Last definite evidence of a thylacine in the wild was betwen August the 3rd and 9th 1930. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
7 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

A genetic science company in Australia has developed a way to detect the presence of thylacines out in the wild.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/341060/firm-develops-tasmanian-tiger-dna-detector

I wonder: would a bloodhound, or better, an American vulture (with the most impressive sense of smell) not do a better job?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
2 hours ago, oldrover said:

Last definite evidence of a thylacine in the wild was betwen August the 3rd and 9th 1930. 

Theres 80% chance of finding DNA after 30 days of presence, it decline probly faster with time passing, so false positive  is more or less impossible, nice.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200115093439.htm

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
3 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I wonder: would a bloodhound, or better, an American vulture (with the most impressive sense of smell) not do a better job?

A scent hound would find one if it's out there, or at least scat.Problem is you need fresh skin or scent to train a dog to run straight on a certain scent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
On 11/21/2020 at 8:35 PM, Jon the frog said:

Theres 80% chance of finding DNA after 30 days of presence, it decline probly faster with time passing, so false positive  is more or less impossible, nice.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200115093439.htm

 

 

I'm afraid a genuine positive is even more so in my opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
5 minutes ago, CuriousEye said:

Yes, @Jon the frog ?

Not a new thing. Used for fishes survey for a time now. A bit less in land habitat, a first for thylacine or ''extinct'' animal tho. Not good to find a single individual if it's what you are implying.

Edited by Jon the frog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CuriousEye
6 minutes ago, Jon the frog said:

Not a new thing. Used for fishes survey for a time now. A bit less in land habitat, a first for thylacine or ''extinct'' animal tho. Not good to find a single individual if it's what you are implying.

How efficient this genomic detecting process can be?

What I mean is, how much time does it take to genetic data from deteriorating in land habitat and whether the possibility to use it to improve manhunts of incriminated suspects,  wanted persons, military assets or targets can be approchable for now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Guyver
On 11/21/2020 at 6:56 AM, Seti42 said:

Unlike Bigfoot, Nessie, Chupacabra, etc. Thylacines were/are actually real. I hope we can find out they're still around, but I won't hold my breath...

The chupacabra is actually confirmed and a lady in Texas has one prepped and mounted in her living room.

https://www.texasobserver.org/chupacabra-legends-texas/

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
51 minutes ago, CuriousEye said:

How efficient this genomic detecting process can be?

What I mean is, how much time does it take to genetic data from deteriorating in land habitat and whether the possibility to use it to improve manhunts of incriminated suspects,  wanted persons, military assets or targets can be approchable for now?

Like cited above, there's  80% chance of finding a species DNA after 30 days of presence. It continue to going down quite fast. It's not like testing a leftover (hair, tissue, fluid) with enormous quantity of DNA, it's testing the habitat for a trace presence. What little DNA found in an  open habitat cannot identify an individual but it can give you a list of species occuring tin the habitat if you have identification tracers for these species.

Right now, the firm have made a identification tracer for thylacines, si they can use it to see if it'S present or not in samples. It's quite cool.

Edited by Jon the frog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CuriousEye
10 minutes ago, Jon the frog said:

Like cited above, there's  80% chance of finding a species DNA after 30 days of presence. It continue to going down quite fast. It's not like testing a leftover (hair, tissue, fluid) with enormous quantity of DNA, it's testing the habitat for a trace presence. What little DNA found in an  open habitat cannot identify an individual but it can give you a list of species occuring tin the habitat if you have identification tracers for these species.

Right now, the firm have made a identification tracer for thylacines, si they can use it to see if it'S present or not in samples. It's quite cool.

Quite cool, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42
On 1/13/2021 at 9:07 AM, Guyver said:

The chupacabra is actually confirmed and a lady in Texas has one prepped and mounted in her living room.

https://www.texasobserver.org/chupacabra-legends-texas/

 

It's a dog. This has been debunked ages ago. I believe the specific breed is called a Mexican Hairless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
1 hour ago, Seti42 said:

It's a dog. This has been debunked ages ago. I believe the specific breed is called a Mexican Hairless. 

No.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

No.

Yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.