from the get-a-good-look-they-might-be-gone-in-your-lifetime dept.
A Sumatran rhino gave birth at a sanctuary in Indonesia on Thursday, an official said, taking the critically endangered species a step further away from extinction.
The female calf was born at 5:40 am on western Sumatra island, a spokesman for the environment ministry said.
It was the second baby born to rhino Ratu. Her previous birth four years ago marked the first time a Sumatran rhino had been born in an Asian breeding facility for more than 140 years.
The new calf and Ratu, whose name means "Queen" in Indonesian, were both in good health, with the newborn feeding within two hours, spokesman Novrizal Tahar told AFP.
...
Sumatran rhinos are extremely rare, with just 100 believed to exist in the world. The birth is a major boon for the species, which last year was declared extinct in Malaysia.
One baby is a "step further away from extinction."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Dr John on Friday May 13 2016, @01:53PM
But they are going to have a difficult time bringing such a slow breeding species back from the brink. I hope this is just the beginning of a successful breeding program.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @02:03PM
In other news, you can hunt all the Sumatran Rhino you want in Yellowstone.
(Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Friday May 13 2016, @04:52PM
That's actually the solution to save the species: Tell the rhinos that they get permanent residency in a US national park if they have their Anchor Babies there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @07:30PM
During the Republican presidential debates, the candidates were asked: if you could travel back in time and kill baby RINOs, would you do it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @02:25PM
With only 100 individuals left, I wonder what the lack of genetic diversity will do to the species even if it does bounce back?
Sad that humans can let it get that far, but happy that some humans care enough to make a difference.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 13 2016, @05:34PM
Same supposedly happened to humans tens of thousands of years ago. We were down to maybe a few hundred but bounced back to the point that we are choking the planet with our cancerous presence. Not a bad rebound of you ask me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @08:20PM
Noah's flood didn't really happen.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 13 2016, @08:52PM
Good grief: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=humans+came+close+to+extinction [lmgtfy.com]
I appear to have been off by a factor of 10 but it still applies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @02:30PM
Wouldn't such large mammals need much more genetic variation to not go extinct soon (if anthropogenic climate change didn't make Earth uninhabitable first)?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday May 13 2016, @05:07PM
Why does their size matter?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @07:40PM
actually, the bigger the animal, the smaller the amount of individuals generally alive with no threat of extinction. also, bigger animals apparently have better protections against cancer, which probably helps with a limited genetic pool...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @09:04PM
That's why the breeding programs track parents and offspring. By carefully selecting the breeding partners you can prevent inbreeding. Throw in some modern day molecular genetics and you can even make better selections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13 2016, @10:49PM
coming soon: the Roundup-resistant rhinoceros