How large would the park have to be and how much revenue would it generate?

@tftftftftftftftftftftftf Revenue does not matter. The park does not need to be huge, let us say at least the size of a football field.

What’s your cutoff for prehistoric?

@NicoDelon yeah, would a zoo displaying a Tasmanian Tiger or a passenger pigeon count?

@NicoDelon Let us say anything prior to 6000 BC.

@MikeTearon OK and would it have to be a for profit park centred around them, or would a zoo, wildlife park, or Ripley's believe it or not having an extinct animal on display count?

And note under the 6000 BC rule, mammoths could be excluded: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/world/woolly-mammoth-mutations-scn/index.html

Inbreeding among the last woolly mammoths may have led to extinction | CNN

Some of the last mammoths on Earth suffered from mutated genes that reduced fertility, caused diabetes, affected their development and even kept them from being able to smell flowers, according to a new study.

@Mad It does not matter if it is for profit or not. It would have to be something provable of course. As for mammoths, were not they around for a long time prior to 6000 BC?

@MikeTearon I mean so were Tasmanian tigers and passenger pigeons?

Perhaps the definition should be "from a DNA sample at least 8,000 years old"? That way a passenger pigeon/tasmanian tiger that was (inexplicably) raised from a 10,000yo DNA sample would be OK, but more importantly a mammoth from one of the siberian permafrosts would be too.

@Mad Fine by me.

@MikeTearon Oh I guess I meant "extinct prior to 6000 BC", I do not know if this what you understood? Otherwise there is going to be some confusion indeed : )

@MikeTearon Point was that some species of mammoth weren't extinct by 6000 BC but I'd imagine that a mammoth would still feel "prehistoric" to many haha

@Mad Definitely : ) I have relaxed the constraint a bit to include 'almost extinct species' as well, I think this should work fine.