Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lonesome George Is Dead At 100

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the he-was-only-middle-aged dept.

Earth 154

New submitter camperdave writes "Lonesome George, the last remaining tortoise of his kind and a conservation icon, died on Sunday of unknown causes, the Galapagos National Park said. He was thought to be about 100 years old."

cancel ×

154 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Soup's up! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448727)

Is tortoise soup all that different from turtle soup?

Re:Soup's up! (4, Funny)

kat_skan (5219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449121)

Nothing better on a cold night like this than some boiling hot soup! Why don't I just go ahead and heat you up a cup? It's made from turtles! Turtles that you love!

Re:Soup's up! (1)

humanrev (2606607) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449595)

This reference could only be made due to the recent Humble Bundle...

Re:Soup's up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450041)

It's turtles all the way down!

I LIKE TURTLES (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448729)

n/c

Re:I LIKE TURTLES (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450751)

Out of all the reptiles, humans seem to connect better with Turtles then say Snakes, or Lizzards. If a Snake Species went extinct, there would be a lot less sorrow then for a Tortoise.

Extinct George (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448733)

Not so lonesome anymore...

Poor bastard... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448739)

Too bad he didn't get laid.

Re:Poor bastard... (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448749)

He did; three times with two females from a different island a few years ago. The eggs were infertile.

Re:Poor bastard... (2, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448827)

Different species, they hoped was "close enough" He should have his DNA be stored, maybe clone him in the future.

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448835)

I'm sure they will do that.

Re:Poor bastard... (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448891)

The official classification is that they were subspecies, actually. However, especially in modernity, the term "species" is reserved for groups that definitely can't be interbred with viable offspring (for whatever reason), so we might as well apply that here, although it's all still hazy.

I believe they were separated by about ten million years; to put that in perspective, humans and chimps split 4–8 million years ago. Since one of the major limitations in cross-reproduction between two isolated species comes directly from the molecular clock of nucleotide change (specifically: different patterns of DNA hairpinning cause the paired chromosomes to be unable to recognize each other during gamete formation), even if they had managed to reproduce, it's almost certain the offspring would've been infertile.

Re:Poor bastard... (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448949)

he could have been impotent thus the inability to interbreed would not be able to produce offspring while still compatible species

Re:Poor bastard... (4, Funny)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448987)

he could have been impotent thus the inability to interbreed would not be able to produce offspring while still compatible species

Nah, he was just wise with age, and took precautions so that he didn't need to spend the golden years heating formula and changing turtle diapers.

Re:Poor bastard... (2, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449241)

That theory is out; turtles don't lay eggs unless mating has occurred, and three clutches were found.

Re:Poor bastard... (5, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449593)

I have a pet turtle that has laid eggs twice now, most recently last week. It hasn't met another turtle since I bought it as a baby from the pet store, several years ago.

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449629)

Omelette for breakfast ?

Re:Poor bastard... (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449695)

Shh! You're ruining my gig! These people think I know something!

At least one news site made the same mistake. I inferred it from there, after giving up my hunt for an answer to that exact question and assuming they knew something. Clearly trusting journalists was a mistake.

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450561)

Turtles vs tortoises, perhaps?

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450687)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle#Turtle.2C_tortoise.2C_or_terrapin

Re:Poor bastard... (5, Funny)

englishknnigits (1568303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449853)

Nature always finds a way...

Re:Poor bastard... (2)

quenda (644621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450597)

he could have been impotent thus the inability to interbreed would not be able to produce offspring while still compatible species

Well, he was a hundred years old. Did they try giving him Viagra(tm)?

Re:Poor bastard... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450641)

I thought reptiles didn't have willies?

Re:Poor bastard... (3, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449569)

I believe they were separated by about ten million years; to put that in perspective, humans and chimps split 4–8 million years ago.

And to put THAT in perspective. He tried it three times ago with a female-thing that's even 2 to 6 million years further apart from his biology than man is away from monkeys.

Yuck. Must. not. think. about it.

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450467)

Now you know why they called him LONESOME.

Re:Poor bastard... (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449633)

Sorry, but breeding is not a definitive black and white for species. That two populations can interbreed and produce fertile offspring does not automatically make them the same species (grizzly bears and polar bears), any more than an inability to interbreed means they're not (ie. chihuahuas and Great Danes).

The species concept is considerably more complex than inter fertility, and is really a spectrum of traits that will always be somewhat subjective. Nature doesn't follow nice clean Linnean lines.

Re:Poor bastard... (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449709)

I was waiting for that to come along. Did I ever mention how lousy my ecology professor was? Taxonomy always seemed like a really fun area, but I never got around to a population genetics course. Time to crack open one of the fifty-ish books I have that covers it, I guess.

Re:Poor bastard... (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449773)

Let me ask you a question as a biologist -- I've learned too that species encompasses all individuals who can interbred with each other and produce fertile offspring. But some livings have a too weird reproductive cycle to be reconsilidated with that definition.
Lets look at the common dandelion (Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia). There are three kinds of dandelion plants out there, looking all the same. But some are diploid, others triploid and quadroploid. Triploid dandelions are sterile, they can only clone itself to reproduce. Diploid dandelions can interbred with other diploid dandelions, and their offspring is quadroploid. Quadroploid dandelions can't interbred with each other, but diploid dandelions can interbred with quadroploids, and the offspring is triploid. Here the story would come to an end, because triploids are sterile. But sometimes during cloning, something goes wrong, and a diploid seed is produced, causing a fertile diploid dandelion to grow, and now the cycle starts again. So how does a biologist classify the dandelion individual, where most dandelions are infertile, some can't interbred with each other, and only one kind is quite fertile, but does not reproduce itself during interbreding? One could define one dandelion individual as being all the plants from a diploid, it's quadroploid offspring, the triploid F2 generation and then all clones until the next diploid clone. But then we get into the "divisible individual" contradiction.

How does a biologist deal with such situations? Just some handweaving "Yes, this is weird, but you get the term species in general, do yo"?

Re:Poor bastard... (5, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449893)

I just sorta had my butt handed to me on that question [slashdot.org] , so I may not be the best person to consult about the basics of taxonomy. I do however believe there ought to be a disclaimer somewhere at the start of every genetics textbook that goes something to the tune of "don't ask about plants and ploidy, you'll never be satisfied with the answer."

But to make a long story short, I would actually map the different ploidies of dandelions to something like sexes. Organisms adopt some heinously bizarre techniques for managing population size when they're wildly successful, and it sounds to me like this is a reproductive strategy that's working quite handsomely for them. It kinda reminds me of C. elegans, which is a 95% self-fertilizing hermaphrodite, 5% male species; the males exist to jumble things up now and then. (And there are certainly plenty of species with infertile members, like social insects!)

Interestingly, there are ample parallels to be drawn in computing with various techniques for jiggling neural networks to get them out of local minima.

In the species question. I'm pretty sure that the content of the chromosomes is considered a factor as well. Wikipedia has an article on the species problem [wikipedia.org] (if you aren't holding the answer behind your back, since you clearly know your Mendelian genetics!) which I am probably not yet qualified to comment on the reliability of. The hard truth, though, is that the word is archaic fluff, and that organisms fall in and out of style (mostly out) with each other all the time. A slightly better concept is this thing [wikipedia.org] , but that has more to do with population flow than anything rightly concrete.

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450347)

Just to add to the wtf factor: black-headed gulls. There's populations all round the arctic circle. And all the populations can interbreed with the neighbor populations *except* for two, which are infertile. So A->B works, B->C, C->D ... X->Y, Y->Z. But Z->A, they're different species!

Re:Poor bastard... (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450427)

The problem is that the species distinction doesn't hold over time, and with time being a necessary factor for evolution, the species definition is not necessarily in its best shape within the evolutionary framework.

Re:Poor bastard... (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448963)

They would have inserted frog DNA to bridge the gaps, but we all know how that turns out.

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449225)

It'd become a very confused female turtle named Kermette, which would then try to kill us all for some reason.

Re:Poor bastard... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450511)

That's like infinitely times more than the average slashdotter!

Re:Poor bastard... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448907)

He was kind of a jerk. He once mugged a snail but was never charged. The snail couldn't ID him because the robbery happened too fast.

First... Er... Last [wait for it]... (-1, Troll)

markian (745705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448741)

Post!

(sorry! RIP George!)

Re:First... Er... Last [wait for it]... (0)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448973)

High Pitched Voice: "Send In The Clones!"

Subspecies! (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448743)

Let's get the pedantic train started early: George was the last of his subspecies (Canoe gets this right... in one of two mentions.) A lot of other sources have been saying species incorrectly. Here's the corresponding Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] . There are still giant tortoises on Galapagos, just not any of the ones native to the island of La Pinta.

Re:Subspecies! (5, Funny)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449013)

Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring

Here, then, Lonesome George was a subspecies anomaly. He got more action than any slashdotters with a 4-digit user identifier, but I suppose that really isn't saying too much.

Re:Subspecies! (5, Funny)

el_flynn (1279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449359)

Hey, I resent that!

Re:Subspecies! (1, Redundant)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449505)

You also resemble it

Re:Subspecies! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449703)

But alas, due to the aforementioned problem earlier in the thread, no one resembles him.

Re:Subspecies! (2)

whoop (194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450717)

I don't get it...

*bada*bing!

Re:Subspecies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449747)

You must be new here

Re:Subspecies! (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449767)

If it was just a subspecies, why were there no offspring with other subspecies?

DNA? (4, Interesting)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448745)

Was his DNA sequenced? Has any of his genetic material been preserved? It would really be sad if the best we can offer the last specimen of such a magnificent species is a spot in a museum display case for his carcass.

Re:DNA? (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448805)

It looks like [yale.edu] DNA from Lonesome George (along with many other specimens from the archipelago) were collected a few years ago and used in some analyses, suggesting they were at least partially sequenced. That article mentions sequencing of the full genome of Galapagos tortoises in general, but not necessarily George in particular. I would expect that it would be under way now if it wasn't already, however, especially with the recent affordability of sequencing.

Re:DNA? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449155)

Geez, stop being so informative!

Seriously though, thanks, it's always nice to have actual expertise in these discussions.

Re:DNA? (4, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449269)

Informative karma is the cheapest karma. O, were it only that these words might be found insightful or interesting! (But I'll settle for funny.)

Re:DNA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450059)

The greatest achievement, of course, is Underrated Karma. +5 Interesting of +5 Insightful is not that rare. However how often have you seen +5 without a qualifier?

Re:DNA? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450451)

I only hope they make two, so they can be Social George.

Re:DNA? (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450579)

Even so, if it HASN'T, I'm sure some of his DNA may yet still be available, even if it requires a little digging. It isn't like he died 5,000 years ago.

My faith in scientists (boy, did THAT combination of words make me wince...) leads me to believe that a necropsy was more then likely performed, including the taking of tissues for analysis. The next question is what would we do with it? Is it possible to insert male DNA into the sperm of another tortoise subspecies? An already fertilized egg? Far out of my field. Anyone know? Or do we just parade it around as some warning to subsequent generations of humans? Even that would be better then a dusty shelf.

Speaking of which, don't we have a stuffed Dodo bird somewhere?

Regardless, 'tis a sad day, especially when I remember that we humans are no safer, nor more significant. Our survival as a species is no more guaranteed then George's was.

PETA Press Release (-1)

Xibby (232218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448791)

I predict a PETA press release condemning his keepers by noon EST tomorrow.

oh no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448797)

oh oh! alas :(

Re:oh no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448817)

oh oh! alas :(

There, there.

Unknown? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448821)

"...died on Sunday of unknown causes..." Old As Fuck. That's why. Fucker's 700 years old in dog years.

Re:Unknown? (5, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448939)

Yes, but you don't suddenly drop dead from being old. There's generally a specific medical cause.

...also, another point of pedantry: it was suspected he was at least a hundred. It was theorized that may have been much older, perhaps closer to 200 than 100. Turtles are so damn rugged and scaly that it's impossible to really tell just by observation. Dying at the age of one hundred would actually have been a little premature for a Galapagos tortoise, equivalent to probably 60 or 65ish for a human, I think.

Re:Unknown? (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#40448955)

Yes, but you don't suddenly drop dead from being old. There's generally a specific medical cause.

      Those two things are not mutually exclusive - in fact, that's pretty much how all creatures die, outside accidents and being killed by external causes.

       

Re:Unknown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449201)

Those two things are not mutually exclusive - in fact, that's pretty much how all creatures die...

Age doesn't simply kill, systemic failures related to age do. Knowing the final straw might not help anything, but not knowing certainly can't.

Re:Unknown? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449253)

I think you may have misunderstood my delivery; that's what I meant.

Re:Unknown? (-1, Offtopic)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449047)

Probably... GLOBAL WARMING!
*cough*
Gl... Global warming...

Re:Unknown? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449277)

Your signature does more to compromise your neutrality than your post's text. I'm impressed!

Re:Unknown? (2)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449065)

Turtles are so damn rugged and scaly that it's impossible to really tell just by observation.

Well, now they can just count the rings.

Re:Unknown? (4, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449285)

I'm pretty sure that only works on elephants and investment bankers.

Re:Unknown? (5, Funny)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449855)

Yes, but you don't suddenly drop dead from being old.

He was a Tortoise, they don't suddenly do ANYTHING.

Re:Unknown? (2)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449061)

Well, if they can live to be 200 years old, then relatively speaking, 100(ish) isn't that old...

Re:Unknown? (4, Funny)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449863)

Yes, with no women around he should have been able to live forever. I think the scientists are to blame for introducing him to not just one, but two females. There's your cause for reduced lifespan right there.

Re:Unknown? (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449379)

"...died on Sunday of unknown causes..." Old As Fuck. That's why. Fucker's 700 years old in dog years.

Old? For an apricot, yes. For a head of lettuce, even more so. For a mountain, I have not even begun. For a turtle, I was just right.

Re:Unknown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450721)

+1 for the remo williams reference chun.

Guess what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40448849)

All I can say is...damn that soup was good!

Unknown causes (0)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449019)

Maybe he was lonely. Pity, they were so delicious, I've heard and such a delicious animal should never be lonely - muhahahahaha.

Soup's On! (-1, Redundant)

littlewink (996298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449077)

Finally those Park Rangers get a decent upscale meal!

no way (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449091)

I would've never guessed George Thorogood could've even made it to that age, what with his pal Johnny Walker and his brothers Black and Red.

DNA Record (4, Insightful)

SealBeater (143912) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449171)

I hope we keep extensive, redundant dna samples. There's no reason we can't at least keep a record for posterity.

Re:DNA Record (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450161)

This needs a +1, agreed.

We can't know in advance just what we'd do with those samples, but we definitely should keep them around just in case we need that data years in the future... and go all "Oh drat! Forgot to backup our animals.."

Cloning (2)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449237)

Even if his DNA wasn't sequenced, it should be possible to clone him (and the females mentioned in the article). I'm hoping they took tissue samples from the females, otherwise there would just be an endless line of lonesome georges (unless he could be bred with other sub-species).

I would assume that cloning reptiles is much easier than cloning mammals, didn't they do a frog decades ago? Of course it would be ironic if, due to "mistakes" in the cloning process, they expressed some long inactive part of the DNA and ended up with a dinosaur instead! (I'm not sure if a turtle is technically a dinosaur already but you know what I mean; big, scary and capable of starring in a movie).

Wrong, maybe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449411)

I'm not sure about tortoise-DNA, but in humans it is the male that possess both gender-chromosomes (X and Y), while the female only possess X-chromosomes. Thus it's theoretically possible to clone male and female-organisms from male DNA, but only females from female DNA. Again, not sure about tortoises but...

Re:Wrong, maybe... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449529)

It doesn't work that way for everything. In reptiles, the females have ZW, and the males ZZ. This means when a female self fertilizes (parthenogenesis) they can produce male and female offspring, as well as WW (usually inviable).

Re:Wrong, maybe... (5, Informative)

samoanbiscuit (1273176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449613)

The XX/XY sex determination system is mostly the domain of mammals. Most reptiles and birds use the ZZ/ZW where the ZZ chromosome holders are male. Some reptiles use temperature based sex determination that is considered to be the ancestor of the other forms.

Re:Cloning (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449949)

Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And after it's grown,
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when I'm alone
With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

The Clone Song: Isaac Asimov [tripod.com]

Re:Cloning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450035)

Yeah, a clone made from an adult stem cell of the bone marrow from one of your rips. Isn't that how Eve was created? :-)

Captcha: emigrant -- fits in some way :-)

And... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449257)

Not a fuck was given. Game, set match, bitches!! j/k

~100 years of memories? (0)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449303)

Does anyone know whether tortoises of his kind have high long-term memory capability? I find myself wondering whether he would remember the loss of so many family members over the years thanks to humans who were not conscious of the ramifications of what they were doing.

Re:~100 years of memories? (1, Redundant)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449527)

I find myself wondering whether he would remember the loss of so many family members

Not any more...

Re:~100 years of memories? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450573)

That would require not only memory but a great deal of understanding. I find it hard to accept a tortoise could possess such mental power. Given lizards are older than mammals were that the case I suspect we'd all be cowering in the shadow of our overload's shells.

Saved its DNA? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449425)

Hope somebody saved its DNA or at least sequenced it, so that the species can be revived some day.

It's just turtles (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449451)

...all the way down.

[/pratchett]

And there's more (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449459)

is everyone sure that he was turtally dead?
Yes?
Turtle bummer, man!

Before anyone says anything (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449465)

I'm not going to let the minor differences between turtles and tortoises get in the way of bad jokes, so don't flipper out.

Re:Before anyone says anything (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449655)

and what is the porpoise of that?

Age (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40449463)

"About 100"

At least now they can chop him in half and count the rings.

I need to top skimming summaries (2)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449469)

Lonesome George, the last remaining tortoise of his kind and a conservation icon, died on Sunday of unknown causes, the Galapagos National Park said. He was thought to be about 100 years old.

Anyone else misread that as "conservative icon" and think this was going to be a story about a pre-Tea Party republican senator?

The secret to long life? (1)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450157)

Clean livin'. Clean livin'.

Re:The secret to long life? (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450715)

You mean give up drinking, gambling, loose cars & fast women?

You might not live to be 100, but it'll sure feel like it!

last in captivity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450457)

The article I read yesterday said that there might still be a few in the wild, but no one knows for sure.

Charles Darwin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40450689)

Wasn't that the turtle that Charles Darwin Himself brought from the Galapagos? He must've been much older than 100 years.

How do they know? (1)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450723)

Maybe he's just having a nap? He is 100 after all.. is he wearing his slippers?

But seriously - just how do you know a giant tortoise is dead? Did they check his pulse? Did they wait until he started to smell? (I refer back to him being 100..)

Why did it take so long to get this story up? (1, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450725)

All the news agencies had already covered and forgotten this story by now.

Frankly, I think a tortoise could have gotten this story up on his own front page in less time...

Unemployment (0)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#40450767)

With the money you get from shill articles and oh /. can you answer something I could have easily googled...
you should pay someone to get these articles out faster than a week later.

Slashdot, News for nerds, recapped, in case you didn't see it on the other 30 sites out there. Stuff that mattered...

-AI

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>