This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tg11297.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this belongs as a Lazarus taxon. There has never been a live specimen ever discovered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.62.83 (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the example given Pink-headed Duck with Takahe. While the Pink-headed Duck may one day be shown to have survived (and let's all hope it has), the possibility that it might does not alone make it a Lazarus taxon. Sabine's Sunbird 15:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The coelacanth was believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period until a live specimen turned up off the east coast of South Africa in 1938. ==Samuel Wantman 06:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't complicate things further. The relation between living fossils and lazarus taxa is explained at living fossils, with the coelacanth as an example. Phlebas 12:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to complicate, I'm trying to understand. I had never heard the term "lazarus taxon" until I saw it in Wikipedia. After reading the article, I wondered if Coelacanth belonged here. Exploring some more, I read in living fossil that "a living species that was thought to be extinct (the coelacanth fish for instance) is not a living fossil by strict definition, it is a lazarus species." So why is it mentioned in that article and not this one? I get the impression from both articles that the Coelacanth is a lazarus species. How does it complicate things further to mention Coelacanth in this article? I think both articles need some work to make them clearer. I'm offering my comments to help in that direction. == Samuel Wantman 19:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant duplicate (repeating examples-one of wikipedia's flaws imo). But you're right, both pages should become more integrated, and living fossil is perhaps a bit too technically written. Phlebas 22:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The species Latimeria Chalumnae is not a Lazarus taxon, because it was never known as a fossil before the extant population was found. However, its existence makes various higher taxa that it belongs to, such as the Coelacanthiformes, Lazarus taxa because these were known as fossils before a living representative was found. Orcoteuthis (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same argument at Talk:Necrolestes_patagonensis#status_as_lazarus_taxon. It would be nice if we could apply the term (and Category:Lazarus taxa) consistently, or else point out that the world uses the term in ways that are not entirely consistent. Art Carlson (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Arakan Forest Turtle be added to the list at the bottom of the article? — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the black footed ferret be included?

• Maybe, but Lazarus taxa are usually those that have been declared extinct. I don't think this species was ever thought to be extinct - people don't assume straight away that when they can't find them they are extinct. Sabine's Sunbird 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Laotian Rock Rat (Laonastes aenigmamus), a member of a clade (Diatomyidae) thought to have gone extinct 11 million years ago. Found in 1996."

Shouldn't that be 2006?

It was discovered in 1996, published in a paper dated 2004 that actually came out in 2005, and was determined to be a Lazarus taxon in 2006. --Aranae 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it qualify? Toscaesque 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would like to add more species.... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-extinct-plants.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0709_020709_cloning.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080312-frog-picture.html http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/search/species_search.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=2159&m=0 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=4624&m=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.66.195 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page would benefit from stating when the term was first used.Andycjp (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the birds section made into a subsection under reptiles? Birds might have originated in the reptilian line, but they are everywhere today accorded their own family, and no one catalogs or thinks of birds as being reptiles. Myles325a (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the most wonderful story of Lazarus taxon in Discover Magazine about two years ago, although it wasn't identified there as such. A bit hazy on details but these exceptionally large stick insects were native to some Pacific Islands, and became victims of imported rats and the like. Then a severe storm came and for about 70 years it was thought that they had been completely wiped out. Then, a few years ago, on a very steep cliff, on an unihabited island, on a SINGLE windswept tree, they were found, about 70 of them, the only survivors of that species, deeply inbred, but healthy. Now they have been bred, and are found all over the world, but not in the wild. Article had wonderful photos of these stick insects, and they are massive.

Anyone shed light on this? I'll try to chase it up myself. And are these insects Larazus taxon? Myles325a (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the link 'Israel Painted Frog' leads to 'Corsican painted frog' (which was never considered extinct as far as I know) insted of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoglossus_nigriventer  ? Can anyone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.239.241 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this species meets the criteria as it was believed extinct and a population was later discovered. It was also first described from a fossil jaw bone from the Pleistocene before the fossil was linked to the extant species. Sources include a National Geographic article about endangered species from 2010 ^[1] and a peer reviewed article found here: ^[2] I apologize for not knowing the best way to add these in. Thank you. 50.53.5.147 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't understand the sentence, "If the extinction is conclusively found to be total (global or worldwide) and the supplanting species is not a lookalike (an Elvis species), the observational artifact is overcome." Could someone explain it to me and reword it for more clarity?

(2) Could we find a place to mention Lazarus taxa that do not involve extant species? For example, palaeos.com states

There are also examples of "Burgess Shale type fauna", best known from the Early and Middle Cambrian periods, but which, since 2006, have been found in rocks from the Ordovician, Silurian and Early Devonian periods, in other words up to 100 million years after the Burgess Shale (Kühl et al 2009; Siveter et al 07).

Art Carlson (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it belong here now? Found: Whale thought extinct for 2 million years --71.50.8.53 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It most definitely belongs there Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had added wikilinks to ''Eidothea hardeniana'' as well as ''Eidothea zoexylocarya''. Citations were also added to the Night Cap Oak information. --Tg11297 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lazarus taxon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205072214/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/11/new_obscure_and_nearly_extinct.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/11/new_obscure_and_nearly_extinct.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, the uncited red links should be either cited or removed. And there's a lot of other uncited information where citations might be able to be found in blue-linked species. The article needs more work before more species are added. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, but the person adding them all is the one you need to educate. They are using either the IP account 107.202.228.117 or the various "2600:1700:c281:7000:xxx" accounts, it's all the same editor from Los Angeles, according to WHOIS tracing. They seem to be culling mass media, and accordingly including things that are often not extinct, but local extirpations that the media reports conflate with extinction (e.g., "extinct in Scotland" or "extinct in Spain") and clearly do NOT qualify as Lazarus taxa. One also has to wonder where the line actually is to be drawn on the rediscovery. If a species is officially declared extinct and "rediscovered" two years later, is it still a Lazarus taxon? If not, where is the cutoff? One thing to consider: instead of the present compilation into a single list, would there be any merit to reorganizing it into categories such as "Presumed extinct for over 200 years", "Presumed extinct for 50-200 years", and "Presumed extinct for fewer than 50 years"? That, at least, would funnel all of these trivial examples based on premature declarations of extinction into the lowest tier, so the real examples are set apart. Dyanega (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When Dinosauria was first described, it was presumed extinct, until we then found that birds are dinosaurs. Does that make it a Lazarus taxon?Dromeoraptor (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BI496cHS (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kelsie.Kienapple.

— Assignment last updated by AOXQueen (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a dog breed that went extinct in 1973 due to disease but was revived 40 years later through breeding descendants of the final known dogs to recreate a purebred. Does this count as a Lazarus taxon or are de-extinct or rediscovered dog or cat breeds not considered? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is that breeds aren't taxa, but I don't know if this has ever been discussed anywhere. SMcCandlish will probably know. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "this" do you refer to Rastreador Brasilerio, or that breeds count as taxa? The breed has a Wikipedia page and I have various sources discussing the breeds initial extinction and then subsequent revival through breeding. Somewhat related question, but would similar animals such as the woolly mammoth, thylacine, passenger pigeon, aurcohs, and dodo count as Lazarus taxons if their respective companies and projects aiming to revive them succeed? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A breed is not a taxon; they are completely different categories. A "backbreeding" program using dogs partially descended from Rastreador Brasileiro stock doesn't magically make new dogs that are Rastreador Brasileiros; it makes for a crossbreed which might with enough effort become accepted as a new breed by major kennel clubs (a decades-long process, and the vast majority of attempts at this fail, or we would have 20,000 allegedly distinct dog breeds by now). This breeding program might be worth mentioning at the article on the original breed, but a) it's not a taxon of any kind, so it is not relevant to Lazarus taxon, and b) WP is no way, no how in a position to claim that the backbreeding program has "resurrected" an extinct breed, or say anything else about that breeding program (such as that it has established a new breed, etc.) that is not confirmed by multiple and actually reliable independent sources. Domestic animal breeders and clubs thereof are notorious for making bogus breed-establishment claims and bogus claims about the genetic heritage of what they are breeding. For further discussion of this, I would suggest WT:CANINE, as a general matter, and Talk:Rastreador Brasileiro, with regard to these particular backbreeding claims. PS: See also Wikipedia:Notability (breeds); while that is a draft the authors of which (myself included) have yet to complete and put up for elevation to a guideline, the information contained in it is correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. There are sources discussing the revival of the breed, but they are mostly in Brazilian Portuguese and as a result, barely covered by the non-Portuguese speaking world. The breed has been relisted by both Fédération Cynologique Internationale and Confederação Brasileira de Cinofilia and have standards for the breed. The English version of the article should really be updated, because it is VERY lacking and outdated compared to the Portuguese article. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this recently discovered/de-extinct Commiphora that is alleged to be the tsori or Judean balsam count as a Lazarus taxon? It is similar to the Judean date palm listing on the article, as both were grown from ancient seeds dated to be 1000+ years old, and both were grown by the same person. The same question applies to species like the passenger pigeon and thylacine, as both have ongoing de-extinction projects that will likely be complete very soon going by statements and information provided by Revive & Restore and Colossal Biosciences. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: since the seeds are genetically identical to the extinct taxon, they're fair game. I don't think anyone expects these "de-extinctions" to be genetically pure recreations. It should be especially obvious if they are not, since we have preserved specimens of the real things to compare any lab clones to. Dyanega (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the alleged tsori plant later, but what category does it fall under? It is not technically an IUCN species, because it was never documented and is an entirely new discovery. As for the de-extinct animals like the thylacine and passenger pigeon, I think that IUCN or similar groups will determine whether they will be classified as their original species, or new ones. Since many Barbary lions and American bison alive today are not genetically pure but are still considered members of their respective species.

Colossal and University of Melbourne have created complete a thylacine genome, but I am not sure if it is 100% pure from the 110-year-old pickled skull and similar specimens, or if they substituted the remaining .1% with edited dunnart DNA. As for the passenger pigeon, Revive & Restore said that the revived passenger pigeons will not be genetically pure, but will look and act like the original species. 2025 is only a few months away, so I will have to wait for what is said about the new thylacines and passenger pigeons before I can put them on this list. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really consider genetic chimeras to be the same species as the ancestor that contributed the majority of genes? As a taxonomist, I find this more than a little sketchy - the standard (such as it is, subject to some dispute) for molecular taxonomy is as little as a 3% deviation in base pair sequence for two entities to be considered separate species. It seems to me that the principle behind a Lazarus Taxon is that it is discovered in the wild when it was previously believed extinct, and that is not at all true for de-extincted taxa. Dyanega (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your claim of a 3% difference, the "new" thylacines should be considered as part of the original species instead of a new one. Since the 110-year-old pickled skull allowed for the creation of a 99.9% accurate genome, but as I stated above, I am not sure if the .1% remaining part of the genome was completed with DNA from another thylacine specimen or edited dunnart DNA. If the principle of the Lazarus taxon is that an animal or plant that was thought to have been extinct, but was rediscovered in the wild, shouldn't the Judean date palm and Montreal melon be removed from the list due to being de-extinct species/cultivars similar to the tsori and soon, the thylacine and passenger pigeon? The seeds for the Judean date palm and Montreal melon were grown after the cultivars were extinct for a significant amount of time. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The seeds of these plants were produced while the plants still existed, though the melon was a commercial cultivar, not a true wild species. They were not de-extincted; people found their dormant life stages and they grew when given the right conditions. If a species is erroneously considered extinct because the only surviving members of the species are dormant, then that seems to fit perfectly well within the definition given for the second type of Lazarus taxon given in the article (where the putative extinction is not based on the fossil record). If anything, this is a better conceptual fit for a Lazarus Taxon than some case where people just prematurely declared something extinct because they weren't looking in the right place. Dyanega (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are still considered to be de-extinctions due to the cultivars being completely gone for a significant time prior to the rediscoveries of the seeds in excavations and seed banks. To reach a conclusion, does the alleged tsori plant qualify as a Lazarus taxon due to its similar circumstances of its discovery as the Judean date palm and Montreal melon, but we need to wait for entities and institutions such as IUCN, WWF, and Australian and U.S. governments to determine if the "new" thylacines and passenger pigeons will be considered members of their original species, or a new species entirely? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all to consider those de-extinctions. Annual plants where I live, in the desert, produce seeds every year and then all the plants die. For 9 or more months out of the year, there are literally zero members of these plant species alive - just dormant seeds. No one would argue that those plants go extinct every year and then become de-extinct the following year when their seeds germinate. You can easily see that that treating dormant stages as "not alive" would constitute an inappropriate concept of extinction. The Judean palm was never extinct at all, it just took a while for it to be rediscovered. That's rediscovery, not de-extinction. Dyanega (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my question, does the alleged tsori grown from an 1000-year-old seed count as a Lazarus taxon eligible for the list? If you want to debate whether germination of dormant seeds belonging to plants that were gone for a SIGNIFICANT amount of time is de-extinction or rediscovery, we can discuss it on my talk page, or you can debate it with news outlets reporting them as de-extinctions. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is very easily answered: based on the definition of a "Lazarus Taxon" in this article, the tsori and Judean palm are very clearly Lazarus taxa. They are NOT cases of de-extinction, because the species were never extinct; they were PRESUMED extinct. Thylacines ARE extinct, so if they are brought back, then they're a de-extinction, and not a Lazarus taxon. If you have a gripe, then blame the inappropriate use of the term in the mass media, which - as we all know - never get anything wrong. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]