I see that Scientific American is once again easily attaining its recently lowered journalistic standards. Of course, if you're paying attention you'll note that this article wasn't written by their own staff, but is in fact a reprint of someone else's work which appears elsewhere. This way S.A. gets to maintain a certain amount of "plausible deniability", I guess.

Also, ff you've been paying attention then you'll know that quite a few so-called "extinct" species eventually pop up somewhere else, so maybe they weren't so much extinct after all! In fact, there was a report out just this week claiming that dozens of such species have recently been found, all concentrated in pretty much the same area. I haven't yet tried to verify that report, though.