Rare species — once declared extinct in the wild — rediscovered in French Polynesia
On a small island in the South Pacific Ocean, a rare species once declared extinct in the wild has been rediscovered.
Partula tohiveana, or the Moorean viviparous tree snail, was native to French Polynesia before its wild population was decimated by the rosy wolf snail, a carnivorous and invasive species.
In the mid-1980s, the species was officially declared extinct in the wild, the final classification before complete extinction, including in captivity.
For the last 40 years, the tree snail survived in 'carefully controlled' environments in about a dozen zoos as part of a decades-long international conservation effort to restore the species to its native habitat, according to a March 27 news release from the Zoological Society of London.
Now, thanks to those efforts, the species has been downgraded to critically endangered by the IUCN Red List, conservationists said.
In 2015, participating zoos began releasing the snails back into the forests of French Polynesia, marked with an animal-safe UV paint for tracking purposes, according to the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland.
In 2024, after more than 24,000 snails of various Partula species were reintroduced, conservationists made the 'groundbreaking discovery' of wild-born adult Moorean viviparous tree snails, suggesting the species is successfully breeding in its natural habitat, researchers said.
'Seeing a species return from the brink after years of collaborative effort is exactly why we do what we do,' said Paul Pearce-Kelly, senior curator of invertebrates at the Zoological Society of London and head of the international Partula conservation program.
'The resilience of these snails shows what can be achieved when conservationists, governments, and local communities work together to reverse biodiversity loss,' Pearce-Kelly said in the release.
Many Partula snail species went extinct in French Polynesia after the rosy wolf snail was introduced to the islands to control the giant African land snail population, experts said.
Instead of preying on the intended target, the rosy wolf snail showed a preference for the small Partula snails, conservationists said.
Experts said the rosy wolf snail is still present in French Polynesia, but is now rare due to the arrival of another predator — the New Guinea flatworm, Mongabay reported. Scientists said the flatworm, which hunts primarily on the ground, should not pose a major threat to the tree-dwelling Partula snails, the outlet reported.
Partula snails give birth to live young, the size of a pen tip, about every six weeks, according to a species profile from National Geographic. It takes them up to six months to reach sexual maturity, experts said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
18 hours ago
- News24
Rediscovering lost species and why it matters
Rediscovering 'lost species' may sound like a pursuit of idealistic adventurers or a scientific box-ticking exercise but, in reality, it is a vital part of conserving biodiversity in South Africa and giving it a fighting chance, writes Dr Oliver Cowan. How do you protect something if you do not know it is still alive? South Africa is home to a rich array of biodiversity with approximately 67 000 animal species and over 20 000 plant species - many of which occur nowhere else on earth. These numbers are not static, however, and increase when new species are discovered and formally described, and decrease should a species be declared extinct. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), through its Red List of Threatened Species, confirms a species' extinction only when there 'is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died'. This is determined after exhaustive surveys across the species' known range have failed to find any individuals. But what of those species in limbo? Known as 'lost species', they are defined by the re:Wild organisation as species that have not been recorded for 10 or more years. Although South Africa is relatively well surveyed in comparison to many other parts of the world, species occurrence knowledge gaps still exist. This is generally attributable to either geographic reasons - remote and inaccessible areas are hard to get to - or due to a species' behavioural ecology such that standard survey efforts are ineffective at recording the species. For example, soil-dwelling species can be challenging to find, the most energetic and swift species can be hard to capture or identify from a distance, and morphologically cryptic species can be difficult to separate from similar looking species. But why is it important to fill these knowledge gaps? Accurate and up-to-date knowledge of where a species occurs is a key component of assessing a species' risk of extinction which, in turn, informs decisions about land-use which enhances the protection of species of conservation concern. For instance, effective spatial planning for protected area expansion and delineating critical or key biodiversity areas must account for the distribution of threatened species. Similarly, legislation intended to protect species of conservation concern from further habitat loss relies heavily on this information. For example, in South Africa the scoping phase of an environmental impact assessment must include a screening report that flags the presence of species of conservation concern within the proposed development footprint. However, the data which informs the screening report's high sensitivity layer - requires records of species' occurrence from the past 20 years. It is thus entirely plausible that knowledge gaps in the form of poorly sampled regions, and/or a lack of robust extinction risk assessments, result in species slipping through the cracks. They may lose important habitat simply because we did not know that they were there. Conservationists know that targeted, species-specific surveys are essential to rediscover lost species. Unfortunately, the financial resources, time and effort needed to support these surveys are not insignificant. Nevertheless, in recent years there has been an uptick in the rediscovery of lost species. These include the rediscovery of De Winton's golden mole (Cryptochloris wintoni) in 2021 after it was last recorded in 1937; Pennington's blue butterfly (Lepidochrysops penningtoni) – rediscovered in 2021, last recorded in 1968; the orange-tailed sandveld lizard (Nucras aurantiaca) – rediscovered in 2022, last recorded in 2005; Branch's rain frog (Breviceps branchii) – rediscovered in 2023, last recorded in 2008; and the Blyde Rondawel flat gecko (Afroedura rondavelica) – rediscovered in 2025 after 33 years. READ | SEE | Five 'lost' species that have been recovered in SA The orange-tailed sandveld lizard is a prime example of the importance of targeted surveys. This charismatic reptile had miraculously only been captured once, in 2005 near Lambert's Bay, and subsequently incidentally photographed on a camera trap in 2011. The habitat in which the species is known to occur has undergone substantial historical transformations, mostly due to agriculture, and in more recent years, a slew of mining developments have occurred along the West Coast. Indeed, in 2022, a right to prospect for phosphate ore was granted that encompassed both known localities of the lizard. However, due to the paucity of information on this lost species, it was categorised as 'data deficient.' The animal's rediscovery, and the data gathered during the week-long survey, will see the species uplisted to 'endangered' and it will need to be accounted for during future development proposals. Although the aforementioned species were rediscovered thanks to expert-led surveys and supported by funding awarded to conservation NGOs, the potential role of citizen scientists should not be underestimated. With just a smartphone, apps such as iNaturalist allow anyone to upload photos and locations of species they encounter to an online database where taxonomic experts or fellow citizen scientists can identify them. In recent years, a hiker posted a picture of the cream-spotted mountain snake (Montaspis gilvomaculata) from the Drakensberg, 22 years after it was last recorded, and two records of the long-tailed forest shrew (Myosorex longicaudatus) were verified after three decades with no sightings. Not all lost species end up being found. Despite a number of targeted surveys to rediscover Eastwood's long-tailed seps (Tetradactylus eastwoodae), the species has not been recorded for over 90 years and is now officially extinct. This is a stark reminder of the pressures facing biodiversity in South Africa. The continued degradation and loss of natural habitat, combined with a rapidly changing climate will undoubtedly see an upsurge in extinctions in the coming decades. Nevertheless, directing the limited resources at our disposal to best conserve our country's biodiversity requires robust and up-to-date information on species, and the importance of rediscovering lost species should not be overlooked. Rediscovering these species is not just about scientific curiosity - it is about ensuring they remain part of our shared natural heritage and whether through structured surveys, bioblitzes, or a well-timed iNaturalist post, we all have a role to play. Dr Oliver Cowan is a conservation scientist at Endangered Wildlife Trust.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Will a significant plume of Saharan dust reach the US next week?
Forecasters are keeping a close eye on a significant plume of Saharan dust that is making its way off of Africa and through the Atlantic for the possibility that it could reach parts of the United States late next week. Every year, NOAA estimates more than 180 million tons of dust leave the African continent, with the extremely dry air cutting down on thunderstorm activity and tropical cyclone formation. With the help of forecast models and satellites, meteorologists are tracking whether the current plume will survive its trek across the Atlantic Ocean or simply mix out of the atmosphere to be noticeable. If it does survive the trek, it could mark the first major visible dust event of the season across Florida and the Gulf Coast, although it won't be the first wave of dust particles in the skies over the U.S. this year. 2025 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook: Here's How Active This Year Could Be Without El Nino, La Nina Patterns During the final days of May, a minor invasion of the particles was detected over parts of the Gulf of America, including the Florida Keys. The event was largely not visible to the naked eye but was confirmed using scientific data from weather balloons. Weather balloons equipped with radiosondes, an instrument that measures atmospheric conditions, picked up signs of mid-level dry air associated with Saharan dust over the Florida Keys on Friday. These devices provide critical data on temperature, humidity levels, and wind speeds and can help confirm the presence of fine airborne particles from Africa. Historically, Saharan dust outbreaks across the Atlantic peak in June and July before tapering off in late August. In 2024, record-breaking amounts of dust affected Europe, leading to hazy skies and subdued tropical cyclone development in the Atlantic basin. The SAL's dry, stable air acts as a suppresses tropical cyclone formation, which is one reason why early-season hurricane activity tends to be confined to the Gulf, Caribbean and western Atlantic. If the current plume maintains its density, it could bring hazy skies and colorful sunrises to Florida and cutdown on thunderstorm activity. During more pronounced events, the dust can also lead to potential health concerns; however, this outcome is fairly rare in the U.S. According to medical experts at WebMD, fine dust particles can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, particularly for individuals with respiratory illnesses. 5 Things To Know About The Saharan Dust PlumeOriginal article source: Will a significant plume of Saharan dust reach the US next week?
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question
Biotech company Colossal Biosciences made headlines in April 2025 after claiming it had 'successfully restored … the dire wolf to its rightful place in the ecosystem.' Three wolf pups – Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi – were born through this de-extinction project. But behind the scenes lies a more complicated reality. What Colossal actually did was edit a small number of gray wolf genes, aiming to create physical traits that resemble those of the extinct dire wolf. The edited embryos were implanted into surrogate domestic dogs. Many scientists and reporters expressed skepticism about the claim that this amounts to restoring the dire wolf. Experts pointed out that tweaking a handful of genes does not replicate the full biological reality of a long-extinct species. Most of the dire wolf's genetic makeup remains unknown and unreplicated. This gap between appearance and biological identity raises a deeper question: What exactly is a species, and how do you decide whether something belongs to one species rather than another? Biologists call the answer a species concept – a theory about what a species is and how researchers sort organisms into different groups. As a philosopher of science who studies what defines a species, I can say this: Whether de-extinction projects succeed depends on which species concept you think is right – and the truth is, even scientists don't agree. When scientists talk about biodiversity – the variety of life-forms found in nature – species are the basic building blocks. A species is supposed to reflect a real division between distinct groups of organisms in the natural world, not just a convenient label. In classifying living things into species, scientists are trying to 'carve nature at its joints' to reflect real patterns shaped by evolution. Even so, deciding what counts as a species turns out to be surprisingly difficult and highly controversial. Scientists have proposed dozens of distinct species concepts – some scholars have counted over 32 ways to define a species – and each draws the lines a little differently. These definitions don't always agree on whether an organism is part of one species rather than another. Two of the most influential species concepts highlight the challenge. The biological species concept defines a species as a group of organisms that can naturally breed with each other and produce fertile offspring. Under this view, African forest elephants and African savanna elephants were once classified as the same species because they could mate and have young together, even though they lived in different habitats and looked different. Another approach, the phylogenetic species concept, emphasizes ancestry instead of breeding. A species, in this view, is a group that shares a unique evolutionary history, forming its own distinct branch on the tree of life. By this standard, researchers found that forest and savanna elephants had been genetically evolving separately for millions of years, long enough to be considered different species even if they could still interbreed. Understanding these different species concepts is crucial for evaluating claims about de-extinction. If Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi could naturally mate with historical dire wolves and produce fertile offspring, then they would be considered true dire wolves under the biological species concept. But for definitions of species that emphasize evolutionary history, such as the phylogenetic species concept, the lab-created wolves would not qualify as real dire wolves – even if they were indistinguishable from the originals – because they did not descend from historical dire wolves. Despite differences on how best to define species, there is a surprising degree of consensus among scientists and philosophers on one big idea: What makes something part of a species is not an internal feature, such as a specific set of genes, but a relationship to something else – to its environment, to other organisms, or to a shared evolutionary history. By this way of thinking – what is often called relationalism – there is no special 'lemon gene' that makes a lemon and no hidden genetic marker that automatically makes an animal a dire wolf. Commonly shared across all these theories is the notion that belonging to a particular species depends on connections and context, not on anything inside the organism itself. But what if that consensus is wrong? At first glance, the standard ways of defining a species seem to work well. But every now and then, nature throws a curveball – and even the most trusted definitions don't quite fit. Take the case of the blue-winged and golden-winged warblers. These two songbirds look and sound different. They wear different plumage, sing different songs and prefer different habitats. Birders and organizations such as the American Ornithological Society have always classified them as separate species. Yet under two of the most common scientific definitions of species, the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, blue-winged and golden-winged warblers are considered the same species. These birds regularly mate and produce young together. They've been swapping genes for thousands of years. And when scientists looked at their nuclear DNA – the genetic material tucked inside the nucleus of each cell – they found the two birds are 99.97% identical. This finding suggests that even careful, widely accepted species definitions can miss something important. So what if, instead, the key to being part of a species lies deep inside the organism, in the way its basic systems of life fit together? Recent work in biology and philosophy suggests another way of thinking about species that focuses on a hidden but vital system inside cells: the partnership between two sets of genetic material. I and my colleague Kyle B. Heine explore this idea by drawing on research in mitonuclear ecology – the study of how different parts of an organism's genetic material adapt and work together to produce energy. Virtually every cell contains two kinds of DNA. One set, stored in the nucleus, acts like an instruction manual that guides most of the cell's activities. The other, found in structures called mitochondria – the cell's energy centers – contains its own much smaller set of instructions geared toward supporting its unique role in keeping the cell running. Producing energy depends on precise teamwork between nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, like two musicians playing in perfect harmony. Over millions of years, the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of each species have evolved together to form a unique, finely tuned system. This insight has led to a new way of thinking about species, called the mitonuclear compatibility species concept. According to this idea, an organism belongs to a species if its two sets of genes – those in the nucleus and those in the mitochondria – are optimized to work together to generate life-sustaining energy. If the cellular partnership between these two genetic systems is mismatched, the organism may struggle to produce the energy it needs to survive, grow and reproduce. By this standard, different species aren't just defined by how they look or behave, but by whether their nuclear and mitochondrial genes form a uniquely coadapted team. For example, even though blue-winged and golden-winged warblers are nearly identical in their nuclear DNA, they differ by about 3% in their mitochondrial DNA – a clue that their energy systems are distinct. And that's exactly what the mitonuclear compatibility species concept predicts: They really are two separate species. Bringing back a species like the dire wolf isn't just a matter of getting the fur right or tweaking a few visible traits. According to my preferred species concept, even if a recreated animal looks the part, it won't truly be a dire wolf unless its inner genetic systems – the ones that power its cells – are finely tuned to work together, just as they were in the original species. That's a tall order. And without restoring the full inner machinery of the original species, any lab-grown look-alike would fall short. Understanding how scientists define species – and how those definitions shape the possibilities of de-extinction – offers more than just a lesson in biological bookkeeping. It shows that classification is not just about names or lineages, but about recognizing the deep biological patterns that sustain life, offering a deeper appreciation of what it really means to bring back the past. Reviving an extinct species isn't like assembling a model from spare parts. It means recreating a living, breathing system – one whose parts must work in concert, not just look the part. And that's why philosophy and science both matter here: To understand what we're bringing back, we must first understand what was truly lost. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Elay Shech, Auburn University Read more: Colors are objective, according to two philosophers − even though the blue you see doesn't match what I see Why is astronomy a science but astrology is not? Should we bring back the dodo? De-extinction is a feel-good story, but these high-tech replacements aren't really 'resurrecting' species Elay Shech does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
