97-year-old Galápagos tortoise becomes first-time mom
At 97 years old, Mommy is the Philadelphia Zoo's oldest resident. But despite her name, the critically endangered Galápagos tortoise has only just become a mother—and set a world record in the process. According to the Zoo's April 3 announcement, Mommy and her nonagenarian partner Abrazzo recently welcomed four new hatchlings into the world. Prior to their new tiny tortoises, Mommy and Abrazzo were two of only 44 Western Santa Cruz Giant tortoises in US zoos. Mommy is now one of the most genetically valuable tortoises in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' (AZA) Species Survival Plan and the oldest first-time mother of her kind.
'Mommy arrived at the Zoo in 1932, meaning anyone that has visited the Zoo for the last 92 years has likely seen her,' said Philadelphia Zoo President and CEO Jo-Elle Mogerman. 'Philadelphia Zoo's vision is that those hatchlings will be a part of a thriving population of Galapagos tortoises on our healthy planet 100 years from now.'
The Galápagos once hosted 15 unique tortoise species across seven of its islands. After centuries of human exploitation, two of the 15 species are now extinct, while the rest range from critically endangered to vulnerable. Galápagos tortoises are the largest tortoises in the world, with males regularly weighing 500 pounds and the females averaging about half that. The cold-blooded reptiles spend a couple hours each day sunbathing and another 8 to 9 hours either snacking or shuffling around at their famously slow pace. Their laidback lifestyle and genetics (as well as a lack of native predators) allow Galápagos tortoises to regularly reach 100 to 200 years of age.
It took multiple attempts for Mommy to reach the milestone moment. She has laid three clutches since 2023, none of which resulted in viable eggs. In November 2024, she laid 16 billiard ball-sized eggs that she then buried in the sand. Galápagos tortoise sex is determined by the temperature at which they incubate—anything below 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit results in males, while anything above 85.1 degrees Fahrenheit produces females. To help guide the chances for increased genetic diversity, the Zoo's reptile and amphibian team made sure to resituate Mommy's clutch so that half would be male and half female if they all hatched. Individual eggs can take anywhere from four to eight months to hatch, and the first of the new quartet arrived on February 27.
'This is a monumental achievement for our animal care team that worked diligently to provide the right conditions for Mommy to lay her eggs and for the eggs to incubate and successfully hatch,' said Lauren Augustine, the Philadelphia Zoo's director of herpetology and birds. 'Until now, Mommy's genes were not represented in the AZA population, making these offspring extremely important in the protection of this species.'
The four hatchlings will spend the next few weeks under the care and observation of the Zoo's team of experts before making their public debut on April 23. Visitors will have at least five years to swing by and say hello before they potentially move to different facilities, where they will hopefully help usher in more generations of the critically endangered animal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Researchers make stunning discovery about the Arctic that could impact entire globe: 'Fixing these models is essential'
For decades, scientists have used complex computer models to predict how Earth's most vulnerable regions will respond to increasing global temperatures. But in the case of the Arctic — which is warming at least three times faster than the rest of the planet — those models have consistently fallen short. Now, researchers believe they've found one big overlooked reason: winter clouds. Scientists at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, have made a breakthrough that could reshape how we understand Arctic warming — and what it means for the rest of the planet. In a new study published in Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Research, researchers found that many leading climate simulations have a key flaw: they misrepresent Arctic cloud composition during winter, overestimating the ice and underestimating the liquid water content. That small detail? It has major consequences. In the Arctic's long, dark winters, clouds made of liquid trap heat more effectively — almost like a thermal blanket. And when those clouds are modeled incorrectly, it skews predictions about how quickly the Arctic is warming. "We found that the more liquid water these clouds contain, the better they are at trapping heat," explained co-author Momoka Nakanishi. This finding could help explain why the Arctic has been warming three to four times faster than the global average — faster than scientists had predicted. And while this might sound like a modeling issue with future implications, the reality is more urgent. The current models may be underestimating today's warming and overestimating tomorrow's. That's a dangerous mismatch — especially when polar warming influences everything from sea level rise to extreme weather patterns across the globe. And even if global warming were limited to the international target of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, another study warns that it may still be too late to prevent irreversible melting in the polar ice sheets. That would mean multimeter sea level rise — with long-term consequences for coastal communities worldwide. As cloud study co-author Takuro Michibata said, "Fixing these models is essential not just for the Arctic, but for understanding its impact on weather and climate change across the globe." Should the government ban gas stoves? Yes Only in new buildings Only in restaurants No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Meanwhile, researchers continue to refine our understanding of polar systems, while clean energy advocates and policymakers push for major upgrades that can make our homes and communities more resilient — including solar panels and battery storage systems that can keep the lights on during extreme weather — while reducing the sort of pollution that leads to increasing global temperatures. Installing solar in conjunction with a battery system can prepare your home for outages and drive your energy bill close to $0. EnergySage makes it easy to compare vetted local installers and save up to $10,000 on installation through tax incentives that may end after 2025. Even small changes matter. Reducing reliance on gas-powered appliances, supporting clean energy legislation, and staying informed are all actions that help — because understanding today's warming is key to preparing for tomorrow. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
What if your house changed color with the seasons? This ‘climate-responsive' paint could make it happen
Editor's Note: Design for Impact is a series spotlighting innovative solutions for communities affected by the climate crisis, natural disasters and other humanitarian emergencies. When Joe Doucet bought a new house in Katonah, New York, he wanted to make it as environmentally friendly as possible. As a designer and inventor, he immediately found himself wondering whether the exterior of his home could play a role in mitigating the effects of climate change. 'One of the things I had not really considered before was: What color should I paint the house?' he told CNN, speaking in a video call. It's well known that light-colored buildings reflect heat and stay cooler while darker ones absorb — just compare chilly Scandinavia's black housing tradition to the whitewashed homes found across warm Mediterranean countries. But what shade would perform best in a climate like New York's, with hot summers but dark and snowy winters? Doucet started by 3D-printing small scale models of his house, complete with similar levels of insulation, and painting them in different colors. Over the course of a year, he found that in winter the inside temperature of the black model was on average 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the white one. In summer, the white model house was 12 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. 'The answer wasn't, 'Should I paint it black or white?' The answer was: It should be black in winter and white in summer,' he said of the findings. 'It is not really feasible to paint a house twice a year. I began to think, 'Surely there are other ways of doing this?'' Doucet's solution was inspired by his childhood interest in mood rings, which feature manmade 'stones' that change appearance according to the wearer's finger temperature. 'I recall a fascination I had with a mood ring I received as a child and really trying to dig in and understand what it was,' he explained. 'I knew, even as 7-year-old, that (the ring's changing color) had nothing to do with my mood, that there was some type of chemistry at play. The chemistry that creates that change is very, very similar to what I used.' The process in question is called a thermochromic response, which refers to how chains of liquid crystals react to atmospheric temperature. In a mood ring, these liquid crystals are contained within the 'gemstone,' causing its color to change. Doucet developed a kind of thermochromic pigment containing the crystals and started experimenting with a tin of ordinary housepaint and different additives. The result was a substance that could change color by absorbing ultra-violet light (which produces heat) above a certain temperature. Despite what he called the 'great success' of his initial trials, Doucet found his new paints would slowly degrade in the sunlight. But after experimenting for another year, the designer solved the issue with the help of a protective additive. His climate-responsive paint, as he dubs it, appears 'very, very dark gray' below 77 degrees Fahrenheit and gradually turns lighter as the temperature rises. Doucet has since filed a patent application for the technology. He admits his invention won't be especially useful for people in consistently hot or cold climates. But Doucet believes his paint could be a 'game changer' for those living in the world's temperate zones — including large parts of North America, Europe and Asia — where average temperatures are typically higher than 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the warmest months but no lower than 26.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the coldest. Last year was the hottest year on record. It was also the first calendar year to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a critical climate threshold. Doucet sees his invention as a direct response to this changing climate, rather than innovative new technology: 'This could have been done 70 years ago, there was just no need for it,' he explained. 'Climate change wasn't an issue at the time.' But more than helping homeowners respond to rising temperatures, Doucet's invention could have an impact on their climate pollution amid increasing energy costs and dependence on air conditioning (in 2020, 88% of US households used AC, up from 77% two decades ago). The operation of buildings accounts for 30% of global energy consumption, according to the International Energy Agency. But homes with improved thermal control consume less power by reducing demand for both air conditioning and heating. Doucet's modeling 'conservatively' predicts his paint could help households save between 15% to 30% on their energy costs. Beyond the science, Doucet believes there is beauty in the idea that buildings might shift with the seasons, like the leaves on a tree. 'There's something poetic about seeing the built environment and the built world change with the seasons in the way nature does,' he said. He also notes that new climate-responsive paints need not only change from white to black: 'You can tint this pretty much any color,' he explained. A house could turn light blue in warmer months before turning a darker blue in the wintertime, he offered as an example. So, with his prototype technology developed, how long until people can paint their houses with it? 'Five to 10 years,' said Doucet, caveating that its proliferation will depend on how people react to it. So far, he said, responses have ranged from 'amazing' to 'I don't believe you.' The changing political climate may also impact his product's route to market. President Donald Trump's promise to 'terminate' his predecessor Joe Biden's clean energy policies — which he has called the 'Green New Scam' — has created an uncertain climate for eco-investing. Doucet, who is also involved with an wind energy venture, says the resulting change in how investors respond to green projects has made him reluctant to raise venture capital and go at it alone. Instead, he hopes to find a partner that can bring the invention to market, like a paint company, a chemical company or some combination of both. 'When situations change,' he said, referencing the Trump administration's plans to cut subsidies and tax rebates for clean energy projects, 'you need to change with them.' Nevertheless, Doucet appears confident that his creation has a potentially huge market. Not only could the paint be used on homes, but also larger buildings like schools, factories and other structures requiring a controlled internal environment. Though he is careful not to oversell the impact of his invention. 'There is no single solution to climate change. It's a series of steps and small actions,' he said. 'But this could be a meaningful one.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
If people stopped having babies, how long would it be before humans were all gone?
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@ If people stopped having babies, how long would it be before humans were all gone? – Jeffrey Very few people live beyond a century. So, if no one had babies anymore, there would probably be no humans left on Earth within 100 years. But first, the population would shrink as older folks died and no one was being born. Even if all births were to suddenly cease, this decline would start slowly. Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed. As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behavior, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. Eventually, civilization would crumble. It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. To be sure, an abrupt halt in births is highly unlikely unless there's a global catastrophe. Here's one potential scenario, which writer Kurt Vonnegut explored in his novel 'Galapagos': A highly contagious disease could render all people of reproductive age infertile – meaning that no one would be capable of having babies anymore. Another possibility might be a nuclear war that no one survives – a topic that's been explored in many scary movies and books. A lot of these works are science fiction involving a lot of space travel. Others seek to predict a less fanciful Earth-bound future where people can no longer reproduce easily, causing collective despair and the loss of personal freedom for those who are capable of having babies. Two of my favorite books along these lines are 'The Handmaid's Tale,' by Canadian writer Margaret Atwood, and 'The Children of Men,' by British writer P.D. James. They are dystopian stories, meaning that they take place in an unpleasant future with a great deal of human suffering and disorder. And both have become the basis of television series and movies. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people also worried that there would be too many people on Earth, which would cause different kinds of catastrophes. Those scenarios also became the focus of dystopian books and movies. To be sure, the number of people in the world is still growing, even though the pace of that growth has slowed down. Experts who study population changes predict that the total will peak at 10 billion in the 2080s, up from 8 billion today and 4 billion in 1974. The U.S. population currently stands at 342 million. That's about 200 million more people than were here when I was born in the 1930s. This is a lot of people, but both worldwide and in the U.S. these numbers could gradually fall if more people die than are born. About 3.6 million babies were born in the U.S. in 2024, down from 4.1 million in 2004. Meanwhile, about 3.3 million people died in 2022, up from 2.4 million 20 years earlier. One thing that will be important as these patterns change is whether there's a manageable balance between young people and older people. That's because the young often are the engine of society. They tend to be the ones to implement new ideas and produce everything we use. Also, many older people need help from younger people with basic activities, like cooking and getting dressed. And a wide range of jobs are more appropriate for people under 65 rather than those who have reached the typical age for retirement. In many countries, women are having fewer children throughout their reproductive lives than used to be the case. That reduction is the most stark in several countries, including India and South Korea. The declines in birth rates occurring today are largely caused by people choosing not to have any children or as many as their parents did. That kind of population decline can be kept manageable through immigration from other countries, but cultural and political concerns often stop that from happening. At the same time, many men are becoming less able to father children due to fertility problems. If that situation gets much worse, it could contribute to a steep decline in population. Our species, Homo sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct. Consider what happened to the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens. They first appeared at least 400,000 years ago. Our modern human ancestors overlapped for a while with the Neanderthals, who gradually declined to become extinct about 40,000 years ago. Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals. If humans were to go extinct, it could open up opportunities for other animals to flourish on Earth. On the other hand, it would be sad for humans to go away because we would lose all of the great achievements people have made, including in the arts and science. In my view, we need to take certain steps to ensure that we have a long future on our own planet. These include controlling climate change and avoiding wars. Also, we need to appreciate the fact that having a wide array of animals and plants makes the planet healthy for all creatures, including our own species. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best. 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: Michael A. Little, Binghamton University, State University of New York Read more: The problem with pronatalism: Pushing baby booms to boost economic growth amounts to a Ponzi scheme The dip in the US birthrate isn't a crisis, but the fall in immigration may be A country can never be too rich, too beautiful or too full of people Michael A. Little 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.
