Extinct in the Wild (EW) species are placed at the highest risk of extinction under the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, but the extent and variation in this risk have never been evaluated. Harnessing global databases of ex situ animal and plant holdings, we report on the perilous state of EW species. Most EW animal species—already compromised by their small number of founders—are maintained at population sizes far below the thresholds necessary to ensure demographic security. Most EW plant species depend on live propagation by a small number of botanic gardens, with a minority secured at seed bank institutions. Both extinctions and recoveries are possible fates for EW species. We urgently call for international effort to enable the latter.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List classifies species according to their risk of extinction, informing local to global conservation decisions. Here we look to advance the estimation of generation length, which is used as a time-scalar in the Red List as a way of accounting for differences in species’ life-histories. We calculated or predicted generation length for 86 species of antelope following the Rspan approach. We also tested the importance of both allometry (body-mass) and phylogeny (phylogenetic eigenvectors) as predictors of generation length within a Phylogenetic Eigenvector Map (PEM) framework. We then evaluated the predictive power of this PEM and two binning approaches, following a leave-one-out cross-validation routine. We showed that captive and wild longevity data are nonequivalent and that both body-mass and phylogeny are important predictors for generation length (body-mass explained 64% and phylogeny 36% of the partitioned explained variance). Plus, both the PEM, and the binning approach that included both taxonomic rank and body-mass, had good predictive power and therefore are suitable for extrapolating generation length to missing-data species. Therefore, based on our findings, we advise separating captive and wild data when estimating generation length, and considering the implications of wild and captive data more widely in life-history analyses. We also recommend that body-mass and phylogeny should be used in combination, preferably under a PEM framework (as it was less reliant on available reference species and more explicitly accounts for phylogenetic relatedness) or a binning approach if a PEM is not feasible, to extrapolate generation length to missing-data species. Overall, we provide a transparent, consistent and transferable workflow for improving the use of the Rspan method to calculate generation length for the IUCN Red List.