That article was definitely an interesting read, as it shows they've done significant research on finding out the genomic/genetic structure.
As far as I know, DNA is just composed of five basic elements, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, Thiamine and Urasol (from RNA/tRNA), but the hard part is getting the sequence right to create the genetic effects desired, in this case, writing the code for a mammoth.

This is how ice crystals damage organic tissue, when the crystals form slowly, they cause the cellular structure to swell up like a balloon and pop, making the biological material too fragmented to use.
That's why flash frozen specimens are the ones they are seeking, because they froze too rapidly for the ice crystals to form inside the cells.
I think the specific criteria is an animal that fell into a lake during winter and died due to hypothermic shock, then was encased in ice afterwards and never thawed, not even once.
The one mammoth they managed to temporarily revive must have met those requirements, as it was found near a polar research station.

What the scientist specifically needs is reproductive gametes, one from a male mammoth and another from a female mammoth, if they're preserved enough, he can combine them in a lab and then use an elephant as a surrogate without needing to know the code at all.
And then if he got a successful live specimen, naturally that baby mammoth would provide all the DNA needed for a proper sequencing.
I'm wondering though, would they have to induce birth early because a mammoth calf is larger then an elephant calf?
Or would the size difference only be noticeable later in life, as the mammoth reached full maturity?

The elephant surrogate in question might also be problematic, as I remember a first time mother getting very confused about what she'd just given birth to, until the keepers pulled the baby upright and she could recognise a baby elephant.
So an elephant giving birth to a mammoth might also be a bit confused at first.
If I was overseeing this process, I'd choose an experienced elephant mother, one that'd had at least one successful pregnancy and thus, less likely to have panicked reactions to a strange offspring.

Also, you'd need at least one matriarch elephant in addition to the surrogate, since pregnant elephants naturally seek out the company of an experienced mother to act as their midwife.



Being an Australian, the loss of the Thylacine species is indeed my greatest regret and even more so because there was still one live specimen in the 1950s.
I'm assuming if ever we master the genetic recreation technology, it would be far simpler to bring back the Thylacines if we have the right samples.
I think about 10 years ago, the scientists started pulling every Thylacine biological sample they could find from museums, looking for reproductive gametes and genetic codes viable enough for the recreation process.

However, my primary hope is that one day, they find that some Thylacines still exist in the wild and it's a sustainable population.
Given how stealthy they were known to be when they were alive, it's unsurprisingly we can't find them if they're still around.
if that was to happen, I'd love to meet a living Thylacine as well.


I remember they were sequencing Dodo DNA when a debate surfaced about what bird family it belonged to, the major proponents insisted the bird was related to chickens and turkeys, but they were proven wrong when the test results came back, the Dodo is a ground dwelling pigeon.
Like the mammoth before it, the Dodo was also a victim of accidental extinction, when human settlers colonised the islands where the Dodo lived, their pigs trampled the nests and ate the eggs.
Because the Dodo was the apex lifeform, they'd never had a competitor before and thus, were not prepared for one to arrive.