I agree with that! Not pro-Colossal But this thread was all about how the article cited seems unaware that dire wolves are *jackals,* and this seems out of data. (Colossal needs to publish its data, ofc.) The article also describes the creatures as modified wolves. So, again, agreed.

For what it's worth, Shapiro told the New Yorker where she got better DNA samples from, allowing, she says, Colossal to create a 91-percent complete wolf genome. But she should publish info explaining what the "better sampling techniques" are.

Looking back at the article, it mentions the 2021 study you cite and Shapiro explictly goes on to say that she got a lot more DNA in two new samples. Of course, she will need to publish an actual paper to prove it. But this explains why the new yorker report doesn't gibe with the 2021 paper

The writer expresses similar skepticism.

The New Yorker article ends with a sense that these animals are one-offs who will have no companionship. :( Also quotes one of the Colossal's own Board Members making your point about it being a wolf with some gene editing.

This is the New York Times. This is wrong?

The article acknowledges this, no? It keeps underscoring that the company's goal was to use traits that make the creature *look* like a dire wolf. And it quotes a board member saying that this explanation doesn't wash with her.