Slashdot Mirror
Every Species on Earth
nickynicky9doors writes: "National Geographic News relates that scientists to date have identified less than 2 million distinct species with from 10 million to more than 100 million still undiscovered. Likening this dearth of information to doing chemistry knowing only one third of the periodic table, biologist Terry Gosliner is involved in the All Species Foundation. The foundation is attempting to discover, identify and classify every living species and place the catalogue online over the next 25 years. It is hoped new technology and new recruits to the field of taxonomy will make the timetable viable."
They might not be around in 25 years.
Any animal that competes with human beings, is a threat to human beings, or requires undisturbed access large pieces of land in areas close to human habitation should be done first. Elephants, tigers, grizzly bears, etc.
Also, better look at any plant or animal that has a high degree of integration with their ecosphere (global warming will change their ecosphere faster than they can adapt).
Oh, anything at either poles - human-based pollutants seem to gravitate to these areas.
Better get everything in the ocean as well - over fishing and other human activities is disrupting the food chain.
Any animal or plant that lives in any forest that is accessible by the logging companies probably should be classified early, as well.
Finally, any animal that has "trophy" value or is poached for body parts to be made into aphrodisiacs won't be around for long.
???? -> 1900 - 75 species extinct
What does ???? represent? It looks like you're saying only 75 species went extinct prior to 1900 but that's clearly wrong (dinosaurs, sabre tooth mammals, plenty more).
1900 -> 1970 - 75 more species exitinct
1970 -> now - 75,000 species extinct
Or, to be more exact, in 1900 to 1970 there were 75 species that we identified which then died off. It's not surprising that between 1970 and now we know of more extinct species because the science of identifying new species is significantly better than it was at the turn of the last century.
National Geographic News relates that scientists to date have identified less than 2 million distinct species with from 10 million to more than 100 million still undiscovered.
I read the article and it doesn't seem to offer any evidence other than speculation as to where this number comes from. It seems kinda large to me. I know humans don't occupy *every* place on the planet, but there are very few areas within the top 10,000 feet of the Earth's crust that aren't accessible to humans already. Are they suggesting that life is blossoming in the mantle?
How exactly did scientists come upon this number?
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
On the off chance this was a serious question...
This is estimated using various sampling procedures. In simplified form, you can sparsely sample a large area for some taxon of interest. That gives you a low estimate of the number of species (you know you're missing lots of rare ones). Then you progressively more intensely sample smaller areas. (Why not intensely sample large areas? It's simply not possible to do it with available labor, plus intensive sampling tends to be destructive.) After a series of these efforts, culminating in complete sampling of very small areas (e.g. bagging an entire tree, gassing it, and identifying every single insect on it), you have a relationship between the intensity of sampling and the number of species (of a particular group) that you find. You can use that relationship to make (admittedly gross) estimates of how many species are still undiscovered in the rest of the sparsely-sampled world.
"Species" is one of those fuzzy terms that everyone thinks they know the meaning of, but on closer examination it's hard to pin down. Kind of like "teal" (is it blue? green? dark turquoise?) or "pr0n".
The current usage of the term can denote two groups of genetically identical (well, allowing for normal variation) animals but that do not share overlapping habitat ranges as separate species. Given the opportunity, they could interbreed and produce fertile offspring (the "classic" distinction of a species -- which fails utterly for things that reproduce asexually and for morphologically distinct animals -- like lions and tigers -- that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but generally don't).
Thus you get ecofreaks complaining about the imminent extinction of the left-handed mottled weed rat because the two fields where they live are about to be paved over, when in reality that critter is genetically identical to the right-footed fuzz-backed bush mouse and the big-eared worm-tailed ground squirrel that just happen to live in different areas and were originally described by different biologists.
So, what's their definition of "species"?
-- Alastair
This is not at all like the periodic table in chemistry. If you know anything about the periodic table, you can predict the existence of elements because of slots that a certain number of protrons and neutrons fill. Biology is much more complex and harder to predict.
--avandesande
Th
This is not a good analogy. Chemistry, like math or physics, is an exact science where elements are used as "building blocks" for other elements and compounds. Taxonomy is an inexact science, and the fact that a rare Jamaican fruit fly doesn't have a name yet will not affect other areas of science.
More information is always better, but suggesting that this lack of information somehow cripples biologists is sensationalism.
Of course there are errors. And even more importantly there are disagreements because species boundaries are fuzzy, not knife-edged things.
Various people have made analytical estimates of the number of undescribed species based on what we know about the numbers and distribution of described species.
Estimates have varied widely. The one thing we do know is that there are a lot more undescribed than described species.
Why do non-scientists always greet an honest statement of uncertainty in the actual number - an order-of-magnitude estimate - with derision of this sort?
After all, a hell of a lot of software schedule estimates are no more precise. Mozilla comes to mind...