Dire Wolves Weren't Really Revived, Researchers Say: They Were Edited Gray Wolves

The dire wolf was not brought back from extinction, two U.S. scientists argue in a new paper. According to ScienceAlert, the animals that biotech company Colossal Biosciences announced in 2025 were gray wolves with a handful of dire wolf traits, not a revived species.

Marine biologist Andrew Davinack and biochemist Charlotte Daniels of Wheaton College Massachusetts make the case in Biology Letters. They also propose a name for what they see as a mistake: lineage-genome conflation.

What did Colossal Biosciences actually do?

The company made genetic edits to gray wolf cells, then bred animals that look more like dire wolves. The animals have larger bodies, bigger teeth and paler coats, ScienceAlert reported.

Davinack and Daniels say that is not the same as resurrecting a species. In their view, what appeared in 2025 were gray wolves carrying some dire wolf features.

Why can't a reconstructed genome bring back a species?

The authors say extinction ends an evolutionary lineage, and that it is more than the loss of genetic information. A species, they write, is a population-level lineage with a long, continuous history shaped by factors such as gene flow, mutation, selection and ecological interaction.

Any gap in that history breaks the connection and effectively redefines the species. Even a highly accurate reconstructed genome, they say, is at most a partial snapshot of one individual organism.

Does it matter that the world has changed?

According to the researchers, it does. They question whether a few engineered animals can recreate the genetic variation of a large population or the habitat it once lived in.

Dire wolves lived more than 10,000 years ago, in a world with a different climate, different food sources and different predators. Those environmental connections no longer exist, the authors argue, which is another break that makes the extinction permanent.

Are the authors saying de-extinction is impossible?

No. They do not go that far, but they contend the dire wolf project does not qualify. They see a stronger route in preserved cells or preserved embryos, which could offer greater biological continuity.

ScienceAlert pointed to the Pyrenean ibex as an example. Scientists used cell preservation with that animal in 2003. The animal did not survive, but the researchers' reasoning suggests a stronger claim to de-extinction than the dire wolf case.

Why does it matter?

The paper is a call for more careful language. The authors acknowledge that many scientists avoid the term de-extinction when it does not fit. Their concern is with private companies and media outlets, which they ask to be more responsible when describing such advances.

They argue that a label like de-extinction can mislead readers and make it harder to judge new techniques in context. Lineage restoration, genetic recovery, reconstruction of physical traits, ecological substitution and restoration of historical communities are different goals, they write, and each needs its own measure of success.

The authors also stress that they are not dismissing the engineering itself. They say work by companies such as Colossal Biosciences can have merit as genetic engineering, but it should be described and judged accurately.

For readers, the practical takeaway is how to read headlines about reviving extinct animals. According to this argument, recreating selected traits or producing an ecological stand-in is a different achievement from bringing a species back.

Around Prague, based on reporting by ScienceAlert

Cover photo: User:Mas3cf / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0, cropped

Share: Telegram WhatsApp