Fantastic story. Told by scientists that ancient giant Sequoias & Redwoods couldn't be cloned,

[HiPointDem]

17. what i'm asking is -- the remaining trees are still producing seeds (or whatever you call them) --

why not just plant those?

seems to me the problem is logging and habitat space rather than genetics or ability to clone.

it doesn't quite make sense to me; and with genetic material patentable these days, i just have a weird feeling...

if the point is to plant more trees (as seems to be the thrust of the article), then cloning is unnecessary.

if the point is to preserve & study the genetic material, then why not say so instead of talking about how planting a cloned tree is going to 'save the planet'?

it just doesn't seem quite straightforward to me. i am a suspicious type.

and as another poster said, coast redwoods have been cloned for years and the use is commercial. so what is the use here? cloning an impressive dead individual of the same species...why?