Finding Every Species

And Then by Alien54 · 2003-01-12 17:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

put a patent on every single one for purposes of commercial exploitation

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:And Then by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-12 17:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Not a bad idea. But would dissecting them be a violation of the DMCA then? Reverse engineering and all...
Re:And Then by asparagus · 2003-01-12 18:02 · Score: 2

The Human Genome Project was going to take the combined resources of a large number of research institutions around the world, several hundred million dollars, and 10-15 years to sequence the human genome.

A lone American startup, Celera, took 2-3 years to single-handedly complete the project.

Is it possible that governmental projects are not the end-all of research?
Re:And Then by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 18:05 · Score: 2

Is it possible that governmental projects are not the end-all of research?

I think it's possible that somebody wildly overestimated the scope of the project. Or wildly underestimated the resources that could be applied to it. Or both.

But of course you're right. As I understand it, the vast majority of pure research is being funded by private companies now. So even if that research is being done at universities-- which it is, largely-- it's being paid for with corporate dollars. Which, some people's opinions to the contrary, is not inherently a bad thing.

--

I write in my journal
Re:And Then by divide+overflow · 2003-01-12 18:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it's possible that somebody wildly overestimated the scope of the project. Or wildly underestimated the resources that could be applied to it. Or both.

Many different factors caused the project to take less time than initially planned, not the least of which was clever algorythmic techniques to speed up the decoding process. All of them combined led to a quicker result.

As I understand it, the vast majority of pure research is being funded by private companies now. So even if that research is being done at universities-- which it is, largely-- it's being paid for with corporate dollars. Which, some people's opinions to the contrary, is not inherently a bad thing.

I believe you meant "basic" research rather than "pure" research. Basic research (as opposed to "applied" research) is "experimental and theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge without a specific application in view". There has been a general decline in spending on basic research by corporations in recent years due to the high cost and uncertainty of return on the investment, leading to the shift of basic research to universities. This has had good and bad effects on universities, who have benefited from the funds but have also found increasing limitations and restrictions placed upon them by their corporate sponsors. For example, there have been well documented reports of drug companies putting restrictions in grant contracts to public researchers preventing them from telling the public of any hazardous effects of their drugs, even when those same drugs are in current use by the public.

So their is no black or white answer to which is better, public or private research. Perhaps it is good to have both, just as it is good to have a multiplicity of competitors in a market economy. It may just help to keep everyone honest.
Re:And Then by superyooser · 2003-01-12 19:25 · Score: 2

Do you realize how long it would take to file and process 30,000,000 patents? (going by one species estimate) Patents last only 20 years anyway.
Don't forget to buy a tin foil beanie hat.
Re:And Then by superyooser · 2003-01-13 07:37 · Score: 2

It was rated +5 Insightful when I saw it. Most people seemed to be taking it seriously.
Re:And Then by susano_otter · 2003-01-13 07:56 · Score: 2

Depends on your goals, and the quality of your government.

Private companies may do research faster, but it's almost guaranteed that they will want to turn the results into profit, leverage new and existing laws to lock out the competition, and lock people into a producer-consumer relationship.

In theory, government-funded research, while possibly slower and less effective, has the advantage of administering the results as a public trust, for the free use of all (or at least all citizens).

Private companies may be fast because they're driven by a "time to market" mentality. The only problem is that I don't want to be a "market" for the results of fundamental research. What if Neils Bohr had claimed IP on Quantum Mechanics? We'd just now be getting to the transistor, assuming Bohr ever resolved his legal disputes over prior art with Heisenberg, and Schroedinger, and Born, and Einstein. Not that the transistor would do us much good, since we'd still have to license the multipurpose computing device (patent pending) from Turing...

Government research may not be the end-all, but private research is becoming less and less attractive every day, rapid "time to market" notwithstanding.

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Re:And Then by alext · 2003-01-13 14:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hardly single handedly - all their sequence data was from public research.

And they didn't win - the public effort was described in Nature magazine, and the Celera one in Science, both on the week of 12th Feb 2001.

However, Celera's attempt to violate the international Bermuda agreement of 1996 and turn our own genes into proprietary information did act as a spur to the public effort. Thank goodness they were able to respond.

My own project... by spazoid12 · 2003-01-12 17:16 · Score: 5, Funny

...is to find and sample one of each of these tasty species within 20 years.

Re:My own project... by $$$$$exyGal · 2003-01-12 17:58 · Score: 2

I recommend you start out by sampling all of the "insecta" class, and then work your way up to hobbitses.
--sex

--
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Re:My own project... by Virtex · 2003-01-13 03:12 · Score: 2

You should start with my refrigerator. I've got all kinds of things growing in there.

--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
Re:My own project... by vanyel · 2003-01-13 08:03 · Score: 2

Make sure you find a reputable restaurant, not one that substitutes chicken and uses your money on some silly thing like helping the endangered species they claim you're eating.

Shouldn't be too hard... by Quaoar · 2003-01-12 17:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

List of species known gets larger each year...

List of species that aren't extinct gets smaller each year...

The two numbers will eventually meet.

--
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!

Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by goldspider · 2003-01-12 17:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've never bought this kind of statement. It's high on rhetoric and low on facts.

'Facts' like this that can neither be proven nor disproven are often used by people with an agenda.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 17:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

You forgot to take into account the rate of speciation. About which we basically know nothing. Lots of theory and fossil evidence, but as to the rate of speciation occurring today, we know nothing.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by the+gnat · 2003-01-12 17:51 · Score: 2

It's a safe bet that the rate of speciation has gone down, though, given the shrinkage in available natural habitat. Speciation goes hand in hand with adaptive radiation (it's a part of it, actually), and with the number of unique ecosystems shrinking the potential of organisms to move into new niches decreases.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 18:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's a safe bet that the rate of speciation has gone down, though, given the shrinkage in available natural habitat.

Ah, quite the contrary. It's my (imperfect) understanding that the rate of speciation goes up when resources are limited, and goes down during times of plenty.

The theory is that differences in individuals aren't sufficient to lead to speciation until they become survival traits. In a lush environment, individuals with all sorts of different characteristics can be equally successful. But in a more constrained environment, different traits become survival factors, and individuals with specific survival traits will tend to interbreed, leading eventually to speciation.

To use a really simple example, imagine a grassland populated by browsing mammals. The population is stable, the food and water sources are plentiful, the predation is low. Now kill off all the grass. Most of the browsing mammals will die off immediately. Some of them will have the (probably recessive) trait of being able to eat something other than grass; tree bark, maybe. Those individuals will survive and interbreed. Another group of the browsers will have the recessive trait of being able to eat dead browser. Those will survive-- thrive, even, given all the handy dead browserbeast carcasses lying around-- and interbreed. Eventually the two varieties of ex-browsers will drift far enough apart that they can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring. They'll become different species.

That's the theory, anyway.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by the+gnat · 2003-01-12 18:14 · Score: 2

Hmmm. Okay ,that makes sense- I already knew the last paragraph, but hadn't really put it into the context of habitat destruction. I was confusing diversity and speciation there; I certainly don't expect to see large grazing animals radiating out, because they'll all get eaten first. What I was thinking is that segmentation of habitats effectively limits the potential for reproductive isolation; most organisms within a patch of rain forest surrounded by clearcut probably aren't going to do much adapting, at least not in 25 years. (Most animals, at least. I don't know how this project will deal with microorganisms- I suspect it won't, at least not very well.)

I guess this relates to Gould's punctuated equilibria; I think the overall hypothesis is that repeated mass extinctions caused by catastrophe were followed by explosions in diversity, or something like that.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 18:20 · Score: 2

I guess this relates to Gould's punctuated equilibria; I think the overall hypothesis is that repeated mass extinctions caused by catastrophe were followed by explosions in diversity, or something like that.

Whenever I've read about the punctuated equlibrium theory, I've thought of it in terms of laziness. Whenever a species can get by without doing any extra work, it will. I picture animals just lying around in the grass sunning themselves, because it's summertime and the livin's easy. But when faced with a threat, a species will evolve like crazy: gazelles will sprout wings to escape a charging lion. This may not be the most perfect interpretation of the theory, and of course it's not literally true, but it helps me remember it.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Bicoid · 2003-01-12 19:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, it's more like this. Generally, the species is well evolved to its environment. Individuals in ALL extremes die regularly, so the only ones to survive and breed are those in the middle of the bell curve. This maintains that bell curve. However, a change in the environment suddenly occurs because we all know that the environment is not static. Suddenly, the individuals on one extreme are not dying out and the individuals on the other extreme are dying out much more. The morphospace that the species takes up then shifts until the individuals dying out on both extremes balance each other.

Also, remember that it's species, not individuals, that evolve. Individuals survive or don't survive. That is all.

--
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Waffle+Iron · 2003-01-12 20:02 · Score: 4, Funny

You forgot to take into account the rate of speciation. About which we basically know nothing. Lots of theory and fossil evidence, but as to the rate of speciation occurring today, we know nothing.
That's right, there's need to worry about the possible extinction of tigers, elephants, orangutans or any other species. New species could be popping up to replace them even as we speak!
Just think of the menagerie of crazy, fantastic creatures that could wink into existence at any time. Maybe thinning out today's boring selection will accelerate the process. I was just thinking how cool it would be to have a purple pet flying unicorn; I might get one yet if one happens to materialize! Or maybe a dinosaur the size of a T. Rex, but with soft golden fur and a gentle disposition.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by jericho4.0 · 2003-01-12 20:16 · Score: 2

I find your ideas fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by f97tosc · 2003-01-12 20:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

You forgot to take into account the rate of speciation. About which we basically know nothing. Lots of theory and fossil evidence, but as to the rate of speciation occurring today, we know nothing.

Well, we know almost nothing about how speciation occurs, but one can make estimates of the rate. If there are 10 million species today, and almost all of them evolved within the last million years, then the rate is probably ten per year, give and take an order of magnitude.
This numbers also illustrate that new the number of new species are not really relevant within this time frame. If 100 or a 1000 or 10000 new species form within the next ten years is of little consequence to a project aiming to categorize 10 million species.
One caveot to all this is that in reality speciation is probably not linear but rather happens more like in bursts. To your point, that would indicate that if we are in the middle of such a burst (which I never have heard suggested, btw) then sure that could mess up our calculations.

Tor
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 21:59 · Score: 2

I kinda got the idea that the dude wrote that statement tongue-in-cheek. Which never seems to work on /.
It's a basic statistics problem, but I unfortunately lack the math to do it. It amounts to something along the lines of this statement:
In any group, there is a certain statistical likelihood that some percentage of the group will take offense at something said by an individual in that group. As the group gets larger, the likelihood increases. When the group reaches a certain critical mass, the likelihood becomes a certainty.
Slashdot has enough readers that there is a high likelihood that anything that gets said will find someone offended, even if it's anti-Microsoft.
This problem, of course, is why it's impossible for a person elected by the populace to satisfy all of the voters.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:03 · Score: 5, Funny

In a lush environment, individuals with all sorts of different characteristics can be equally successful.
Thanks, dude. You've just explained to me why rock music has sucked so much since the early '90s.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Bicoid · 2003-01-13 03:46 · Score: 2

A gene is either passed on or it is not. However, genes do not determine the entire final phenotype of the organism (there are environmental effects as well) and it is the PHENOTYPE that is acted on by natural selection, not the genes. Therefore, it is a population's morphospace that is the real unit of evolution rather than the species, individual, or gene. For the most part, that's just referred to as "species" even though species isn't truly accurate.

I've read The Selfish Gene and although I agree that Dawking's theory applies to some situations, he ignores the simple fact that genes are not the only things which determine morphology and behavior and that it is THAT which is acted on by natural selection.

--
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 03:58 · Score: 2

That's right, there's need to worry about the possible extinction of tigers, elephants, orangutans or any other species.

Actually, you're right. There is no need to worry about the extinction of tigers, elephants, orangutans, or any other species, unless you happen to be particularly fond of those animals. The environment changes over time, and animals either adapt to it, migrate around in it, or die off. Extinction is an important part of nature.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 04:02 · Score: 2

If there are 10 million species today...

We don't know that. You could be off by an order of magnitude in either direction.

and almost all of them evolved within the last million years...

We don't know that, either; there's a lot the fossil record doesn't tell us.

then the rate is probably ten per year

No, you mean that the rate was ten per year on average over the last million years. That means you could have seen zero species per year for 999,999 years, and then poof! Massive speciation all at once.

I stand by my statement that we really know nothing about speciation.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Waffle+Iron · 2003-01-13 04:32 · Score: 2

Extinction is an important part of nature.
Do you have any grasp of the concept of quantity? Extinction at a rate that is orders of magnitude beyond normal is not "an important part of nature".
If you killed someone by cramming 300 pounds of mashed potatoes down their throat, you wouldn't be excused by claiming "I was just helping him out. Eating is an important part of matabolism!"
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 05:10 · Score: 2

Extinction at a rate that is orders of magnitude beyond normal is not "an important part of nature".

The problem, of course, is that no one has the foggiest idea of what a normal rate of extinction is. Not to mention the fact that in a system as large as the Earth the rate is sure to vary wildly over different sample periods. Human beings have only been recording history for 10,000 years, give or take. During that microperiod, the "normal" rate of extinction might be N, or it might be N^2. We have no idea.

I just always get somewhat bemused when people hold the opinion that "nature" is the world in the absence of humanity, that humanity is not part of the natural world. If the lions eat all the zebras, that's nature. If human beings kill all the lions, that's not nature. Seems like a rather foolish viewpoint to me.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by dandelion_wine · 2003-01-13 06:30 · Score: 2

Oh come now, let's not play dumb. When people say "natural" in this context they're talking about "the world as it would be without humans" whether or not that is something we could ever accurately gauge. You and I know this. I agree, humans are a part of nature, and it's silly if not dangerous to think otherwise (much easier to destroy that from which we feel disconnected).

However, it didn't take the decades of research and legal battles to finally prove in court that tobacco was addictive for me (and everyone else) to realize it. There's the world of courtrooms and then there's the real world, and if my getting lung cancer is hanging in the balance, I'll just go ahead and quit now and not wait, thank you very much.

Of course we're talking the work of scientists here, not lawyers, but are you telling me that you really need that "natural" extinction rate to prove to you that we're destroying the planet, one forest, many species at a time? If the world as we know, love, and depend on is hanging in the balance...
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 06:44 · Score: 2

When people say "natural" in this context they're talking about "the world as it would be without humans" whether or not that is something we could ever accurately gauge.

Yes, I know that that's what some people mean when they say "nature." My point is that this is a silly way of looking at things.

Of course we're talking the work of scientists here, not lawyers, but are you telling me that you really need that "natural" extinction rate to prove to you that we're destroying the planet, one forest, many species at a time?

Let me give you one example. In the 80's CFC's were a big deal. Everybody was concerned about the release of CFC's and the effects of CFC's on the ozone layer. "We're destroying the planet," they said.

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it did more damage to the ozone layer than all human activity since the beginning of recorded history combined.

The world is a big place, and people are small. Anybody who thinks that humanity has a really significant impact on large-scale systems is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Waffle+Iron · 2003-01-13 06:45 · Score: 3, Informative

The problem, of course, is that no one has the foggiest idea of what a normal rate of extinction is.
You may not, talk radio hosts may not, but there are plenty of people who have spent their entire lives studying the field who do. I know you probably think that they're full of B.S. because their conclusions clash with your extreme anthropocentric world view, but your filter doesn't change objective reality.
iI just always get somewhat bemused when people hold the opinion that "nature" is the world in the absence of humanity, that humanity is not part of the natural world. If the lions eat all the zebras, that's nature. If human beings kill all the lions, that's not nature. Seems like a rather foolish viewpoint to me.
I could use that line of reasoning to justify any action whatsoever, because anything that I'm capable of doing is, by definition, just "natural". "Oh, that bomb I threw into the crowd was made of elements. It was a part of nature. I threw it, but I'm part of nature. Things like that just happen in nature; death is natural, after all. Anyway, nobody has any idea whether those people would have spontaneouldy dropped dead even if I hadn't thrown that bomb. There's just no way you can prove it isn't impossible!"
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 06:59 · Score: 2

You may not, talk radio hosts may not, but there are plenty of people who have spent their entire lives studying the field who do.

Look, you're not hearing me, here. These "plenty of people" have theories, and they have some evidence gleaned from the fossil record. But that's it. They don't know anything about it. An important part of the scientific method is acknowledging, up front, the limits of your knowledge. We can look at the evidence and make some hypotheses, but we can never, ever know.

I could use that line of reasoning to justify any action whatsoever, because anything that I'm capable of doing is, by definition, just "natural".

So?

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Waffle+Iron · 2003-01-13 07:25 · Score: 2

An important part of the scientific method is acknowledging, up front, the limits of your knowledge. We can look at the evidence and make some hypotheses, but we can never, ever know.
I see. You feel that the limits of knowledge are exactly zero. Whatever.
(Boing... sound of this message bouncing off of zero-sized buffer.)
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by dandelion_wine · 2003-01-13 08:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Man. Ok, where to start.

You remember those breath-mint commercials? Trim looking woman is sucking away on one while telling you that it's only a few calories each, so you can work them off "walking, working... breathing " (wink, wink). Well, yes. True. Only a few calories. Except anyone who's seen someone order two diet specials knows that it's not a few calories. It's a few more calories. In the same way that people who say "No one can make a difference in pollution -- it's too big a problem" forgets that it was a lot of individuals who made the problem in the first place. Everyone adding their bit.

So yes, Pinatubo did massive ozone damage. So do flatulent cows (ha ha). And forests need to burn down every now and again. But there's a reason there wasn't an ozone problem until recently! There's a reason we hadn't run out of cod until recently (even though we've had seals, supposedly the culprit, a good long while). There are natural checks and balances that we humans are successfully overcoming. I was in Southeast Asia not long ago doing, among other things, a little reef research (I was just an assistant). Well, turns out that most of the reef damage in the area was caused by tropical storms. Hey, great. Good to hear. Of course, there was a whack of damage caused by fishermen using nets, poorly placed anchors, and cyanide, amongst other things. There was also a lot of damage from snorkelers, many of whom (heh) could not swim, and felt the need to stand on the coral where possible. There was also the dedicated work of the conservationists who, in trying to kill every crown-of-thorns starfish (that destroys reef) either created many more in some cases, or destroyed reef while destroying the starfish. All not good. Of course, again, the storm did the most damage. But on its own that storm damaged reef might recover given time. But you know, add all those things together and that section of reef was a goner. Natural processes at that point were exacerbating the situation (proliferation of those c.o.t. starfish and sea urchins, for example, both likely due to different human-added pollutants).

So, yes, I like to knock people's delusions of grandeur as much as anyone, and if Phil down the street comes out tearing his shirt off, screaming in guilt, "It was me! Me! I destroyed the ozone layer" I'll be the first to use that handy label. But collectively? Yes, absolutely. We're fucking the planet six ways from Sunday.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 08:50 · Score: 2

But there's a reason there wasn't an ozone problem until recently!

Define "problem." You mean a variance over time in ozone levels? There's lots of evidence that ozone levels in the atmosphere have been varying since the Cambrian. If you use the anthropic sense of "problem," meaning any situation that is different from what's optimal for human beings, then you're right. But that should come as no surprise. Every organism evolves in an optimal environment (or for that environment, depending on which way you look at it) and then proceeds to alter that environment. Single-celled anaerobes polluted the hell out of the planet with all their oxygen, remember.

reef damage

From the point of view of the sea bed, reefs are merely pollution, the inorganic waste products of colonies of microorganisms. From the point of view of the sea bed, a reef is about a natural as a department store.

We're fucking the planet six ways from Sunday.

That's the point where I call bullshit. All organisms change their environment. Human beings are not unique in this. Nor should we be.

If you like coral reefs, great. Say that you want to preserve coral reefs. If you like forests, say that you want to preserve forests. But when you jump to the conclusion that we are "fucking the planet," that's the point where I stop listening.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-13 18:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Have we even scientifically defined the concept of "species"?

I thought we had, and said as much in another post in this thread, but I was corrected. It seems like the idea of a species is a nebulous one at best, and at worst downright nonsensical.

Besides, upon further reflection, wouldn't any project like this necessarily run up against a sort of Heisenberg effect? In order to be absolutely certain that you have catalogued every species on the planet, you have to examine every organism on the planet. Single-celled organisms, too. And examining a single-celled organism on the genetic level would necessarily result in the destruction of that organism. Practically speaking, this would happen with any microscopic organism; we simply can't learn about them without squishing them to see what goo comes out.

So carried to its natural conclusion, a project like this would would mean absolute genocide for untold teeming billions of microscopic and single-celled organisms.

Wish I'd thought to post this a few days ago. Surely it would have been good for an "insightful" mod point or two. ;-)

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by junkgrep · 2003-01-13 18:58 · Score: 2

---The world is a big place, and people are small. Anybody who thinks that humanity has a really significant impact on large-scale systems is suffering from delusions of grandeur.---

Just because you're an innumerate, and big numbers blow your mind, doesn't mean you have to try to infect the rest of us.
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-14 04:24 · Score: 2

We are able, pretty much, to change the Environment, or at least bend it to our will, as and when we please.

Every organism possesses this ability. It's just a question of scale. Like I said in another post, anaerobic bacteria completely changed the composition of Earth's atmosphere way back in geological time. They did this by polluting it: filling it with their biological by-products. Human beings are not unique in their ability to change the environment.

Some people don't like change. Some people would rather that the world stay exactly the way it is right now. Some people would prefer that we don't cut down any forests, or kill any animals, or change the world in any way. Those are all fine and wonderful things to believe in. But they're not realistic. Every organism changes its environment, and adapts along with the changes. That's how it works.

if you've finished with some wrapper or your cigerette, don't throw the fucker out the window, just take it home and dispose of it like you know you should!

Heh. That's a funny example. If you throw something out your window, it ends up lying in the grass beside the road where everybody who drives by can see it. (This is, incidentally, a violation in many jurisdictions. You can get a ticket for it.) On the other hand, if you take that same thing home and put it in your garbage can, it will end up in a landfill that most people will never see.

The moral of the story is that garbage that can be seen is bad, while garbage that cannot be seen is okay.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Shouldn't be too hard... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-14 06:41 · Score: 2

I agree that simply bunging it in a landfill is only slightly better than chucking it out your car window (and there should be litter-wardens who can give you a ticket for doing so!)

There are. They're called "police officers."

--

I write in my journal

And... by Noodleroni · 2003-01-12 17:17 · Score: 4, Funny

And start out by figuring out which species CmdrTaco, Hemos, and CowboyNeal are.

--
Esse quam vederi.

That doesn't sound possible by spooje · 2003-01-12 17:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is that even theoretically possible? Since new species are always evolving wouldn't there always be new species to name?

--
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix

Re:That doesn't sound possible by looseBits · 2003-01-12 17:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, over the coarse of 25 years, perhaps a couple of new species will evolve but as long as they pop up slower than we can count them, should be ok.

I think the problem is all of the tiny ecosystems all over the world. There are species of frogs that have only been found in a certain cave, etc. How many of those systems lie in places like the bottom of the ocean? Does anyone think we will have the bottom of the ocean explored to the kind of detail needed to search for worms in the next 25 years?

--
Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!
Re:That doesn't sound possible by superyooser · 2003-01-12 20:21 · Score: 2

No new species will evolve in 25 years, 25,000 maybe.
Woah there, cowboy! The earth has only been around 6000 years. Guess lower.
Try 4.0e0 years
according to Science 275(5308):1880, 1997.
Re:That doesn't sound possible by superyooser · 2003-01-13 08:13 · Score: 2

the same book that has adam create eve from a rib bone [1], noah puts 2 of every single creature on the earth onto the ark [2], all whilst moses waves his arms and parts the ocean [3]?
Man created life? That's news to me. Noah put every creature on the ark? That is NOT even CLOSE to what it says. Moses waved his arms and parted the ocean? Ahh, I don't think it was the wind from his arm motions. (It was not the ocean either.) You've taken God out of the picture in all three instances.
If you're going to disagree with something, it might help to know what it is you're disagreeing with.
RTFM

PETA would approve by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-12 17:22 · Score: 5, Funny

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals that is.

Hrm. by IcebergSlim · 2003-01-12 17:23 · Score: 5, Funny

So they finally got too bored with trying to cure cancer?

Not as easy as it sounds. by Arcaeris · 2003-01-12 17:26 · Score: 5, Informative

This will be a monumental undertaking. The current rate of discovery is a mere 10,000 a year. With an estimated 100 milion species, it'd take, well, forever.

Animals won't be so bad. We figure we have a good knowledge of 10-15% of the animal species out there. It's only so long before we have them all. 25 years is a pretty long time for that.

However, we only have catalogued something like .1% of all estimated species of microorganisms out there. Finding, isolating, and cataloging all of the microorganisms will take us much longer than animals simply because they're so tiny. This probably will take much longer than 25 years.

Hell, even if we had them all, we'd never know what makes these species special and significant. The most important parts of species discovery could be lost in the mad rush.

Not to mention:
"Instead of the time-consuming present system of comparing new discoveries with museum species, there will be a worldwide web-based database."

The issues of hacking/cracking, stability, reliability, and verification all boggle the mind. There's no way we'd be able to be sure.

I think this guy is just trying to get publicity behind the idea that we should speed things up. Like a rallying war cry for the science nerd community.

Re:Not as easy as it sounds. by the+gnat · 2003-01-12 17:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The current rate of discovery is a mere 10,000 a year. With an estimated 100 milion species, it'd take, well, forever.

I think the idea is to identify species based on a genomic fingerprint- the usual marker is actually the sequence of 16S RNA (part of the ribosome). They simply collect as many samples as possible and feed them into the sequencer, and then use computers to determine the relationships.

At least that's what I assume from the article. I don't really think this is worthwhile, because it's easy for two organisms to be nearly identical on the sequence level and still be non-mating. You could have a single polymorphism be the only thing separating two species simply because of change in color, metabolism, etc., coupled with reproductive isolation. In particular, 16S RNA is used for large-scale cladistics because it changes relatively little over time, but this means that the difference between an Amazonian Spotted Yellow Frog and an Amazonian Spotted Green Frog may be nil at that level.

If they're looking at entire genomes, on the other hand, the technology simply won't be powerful enough for some time, particularly if they run into weird or huge genomes. Our genome is small compared to some of the projects underway, and the problem with everything on that scale is figuring out the damn repeats.
Re:Not as easy as it sounds. by Daetrin · 2003-01-12 18:16 · Score: 2

"Hell, even if we had them all, we'd never know what makes these species special and significant. The most important parts of species discovery could be lost in the mad rush."
Isn't it better to at least have the genome down before a species goes extinct than nothing at all? I don't think the proposal is that this is _all_ that should be done, just that we should get that much done as quickly as possible.
Once we've got all the genomes down, more detailed research will continue. And theoretically even if a species goes extinct, if we've got the genome we'll eventually be able to resurect the species later, at which point scientists can do all the research on it they want. (Not to mention restoring it to the wild.)
As for the reliability, that would be a concern, but not as big a one as you make out. How many people would want to make up fake species? And could do so convincingly? Make sure the database gets backed up regularly to prevent it getting hacked, and as with any scientific endeavor make is subject to peer review.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Not as easy as it sounds. by bahwi · 2003-01-12 19:01 · Score: 2

"The issues of hacking/cracking, stability, reliability, and verification all boggle the mind. There's no way we'd be able to be sure."

But think of it, we could break into the systems and add our favorite species:

Linuxius Penguin
B.S.D. Daemon
Microsoftor Jackass

Think of the possibilities!
Re:Not as easy as it sounds. by InfiniteWisdom · 2003-01-12 19:33 · Score: 2, Funny

it's easy for two organisms to be nearly identical on the sequence level and still be non-mating.
You mean like me and that cute girl next door?
Re:Not as easy as it sounds. by Arcaeris · 2003-01-12 20:08 · Score: 2

Finding the genome of each species is much more than they propose. They just want to "find and name," which requires the successful identification of just one of each species.

To come up with the entire genome for everything is something that is impossible. We still only have the genomes of only a handful of species now, and it's taken us forever to get them.
Re:Not as easy as it sounds. by Alsee · 2003-01-12 20:23 · Score: 2

10,000 a year. With an estimated 100 milion species, it'd take, well, forever.

100 million / 10,000 = ummm... there sure are a lot of zeros there... infinity I guess.
I always hated that confusing decimal point crap. Move it this way... move it that way... Yuck! I say just throw the damn thing out.

Chuckle

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Count every species? by kfg · 2003-01-12 17:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

We can't even get to where most species *are* yet.

And while I agree that taxonomy is an important part of biological science, cataloging life isn't the *point* of taxonomy. It might be rather more to the point to *preserve* these species, or at least their DNA (male and female, and put them, into the ark. Riiiiight)

Honestly, I *do* understand what they're trying to do here, but it has an odd, and rather pathetic, feeling of pointlessness to it.

KFG

Nice idea, but... by Arethan · 2003-01-12 17:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why don't they use this opportunity to create a large searchable database of every species while they are at it.

They could include information such as name, ncientific name (the latin? stuff), physical Description, a few photographs of male and female specimins, eating preferences, defense mechanisms, known locations of presence, and other various notes.

When it comes to the carnavores, you could make entries in their diet link to the victims' records.

Then just make it searchable. Filterable by geographical area, species, keywords, etc. Very powerful. Then all you need is to make it publically available. Read-only of course.

Re:The Adam Project by carpe_noctem · 2003-01-12 17:28 · Score: 2

i thnik you spillde one too mnay code reds onyoru keybaord. :/

--
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K

Re:Good freakin' luck by Simon+Field · 2003-01-12 17:30 · Score: 2

We may find a lot of the DNA from that "stuff" in the stomachs of critters we dredge up for food. We may also find it floating around as bits of meat and cellular tissue.

All you need is one cell for the DNA analysis.

What intrigues me is the potential for amateurs to help out. It won't be long before cheap DNA analyzers are available in every police station and hospital in the developed world, and in military bases around the world.

Suppose amateurs could bring samples of critters to a DNA fingerprinter connected to a big Web database, and it would be added automatically.

Even if the sample was a species already known, the location might be interesting, or the time of year it was found. Migratory species could be tracked this way.

The sorting and cataloging will be automated, but the collection can be spread out over all the schools and science hobbyists in the world.

--

Free book: Science Toys You Can Make

But what is a species? by OmegaGeek · 2003-01-12 17:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I should start by saying that I think this is a noble project. The shadow that humanity is casting across the earth threatens to leave all other species in oblivion, except for those we have genetically engineered or deemed economically beneficial.

A major technical problem, however, is trying to define the limits that constitute a species. This is sometimes tricky with animals, and in some families of plants, it is practically impossible. (If I remember my bio 101 correctly from all those years ago). The project sounds similar to what Lineus and the other naturalists were trying to do just before Darwin and the evolutionists bollixed everything up.

I only hope we leave enough other species around so that when we go, the cockroaches inherit a viable planet. And in case they are listening, "we salute you, our insect overlords". Or perhaps an inanimate carbon rod will save us all.

--
Even heroes have the right to dream

Re:But what is a species? by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:25 · Score: 2

Or perhaps an inanimate carbon rod will save us all.
Please don't talk about my penis in this fashion. Thank you.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Re:Good freakin' luck by radon28 · 2003-01-12 17:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

obviously they're not going to find every single one.. that would be ridiculous. from the article:

Lord May said: "At that rate it's going to take us about 500 years just to complete the catalogue, leaving aside the fact that extinctions might help us by wiping a lot of them out, which is hardly a cheerful solution."

i think the point is to try to find as many as possible before it's too late, and the only goal you can set to do that is the impossible one.

All species is defunct...and this is a dupe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-12 17:34 · Score: 4, Informative

At a national meeting I attendent before Christmas we learned that the All Species Foundation is for all intents and purposes defunct, with only a small governing board still existing (this from a board member). The whole project depended on philanthropy from Dot Com millionaires (the effort led in part by Kevin Kelly (sp?)), when the boom when down the tube so did the dream. There are still efforts to name all species and many posters here will mention the problems associated with this. Needless to say it won't happen in 22 years.

P.S. this is a dupe of an earlier slashdot article, on which I ranted on the difficulty of the whole deal...

(Goes back to describing species...)

Re:All species is defunct...and this is a dupe by webmaven · 2003-01-12 19:16 · Score: 2

Here's the official announcement:

My hope for ALL Species in the coming few years is simple. Right now the climate for philanthropy could not be worse, but in a few years it could be better, if not wonderful. I am hoping that the Science Board can help to prepare us for that day when funding opportunities return.

--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
Re:All species is defunct...and this is a dupe by Ben+Hutchings · 2003-01-13 07:05 · Score: 2

The BBC recently had a report on the Foundation on their environmental radio magazine Costing the Earth, which is what the linked article is based on.

Re:skeptical by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 17:36 · Score: 2

Why is the definition that I learned way back in junior high (that is, a group whose members can interbreed to produce viable and fertile offspring) not suitable? This definition tells us, for example, that horses (Equus caballus) and donkeys (Equus asinus) are different species. Although you can breed horses and donkeys to produce viable mules, those mules aren't fertile, so horses and donkeys do not belong to the same species.

What's wrong with that defintion?

--

I write in my journal

I found one today... right under my nose by DarthWiggle · 2003-01-12 17:37 · Score: 2

It was the rare (or not?) everquesticus addicticus roommateonsis.

They hibernate by day, and at night engage in peculiar mating rituals involving hooting at moving images made by their god.

dammit... yesterday I offended the fantasy fans... tonight I offend the Everquesties... I must hate myself...

Grey areas... by trotski · 2003-01-12 17:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hmmmm I suppose one of the major problems in this undertaking to attempting to solve "grey areas", IE what is a different species and what it not.

A case in point is the Vancouver Island Marmot. This highly endangered animal is concidered a seperate species than the regular rocky mountain marmot. Even though the only major difference between the two is that the Vancouver island marmot has a patch on it's nose.

Compare this to the difference in animals of the same species. A dalmation and a bulldog are concidered to be the same species of animal, even though they are vastly different in apperence and behavior.

There are just examples of the thousands of grey areas the exist between species. So one must ask, how specific are they getting, what in these scientists eyes is a seperate species and what is simply a different race.

By setting the standard for what is a species high, the task of discovering every species becomes much easier than if the bar was set lower.

--

"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"

Re:Grey areas... by the+gnat · 2003-01-12 18:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Great point. The best distinction that I've seen is simply that of "reproductive isolation", rather than phenotype. It's possible for two different species to mate and bear fertile offspring; however, they almost always don't. External phenotype on the other hand is a very poor marker of speciation.

These nuances are almost always missed in evolution vs. creation debates. An population of organisms does not suddenly *poof* become a new species. There's no good way to measure speciation; it's a combination of environmental and genetic factors that builds up over time.

The best book I've read on this is "The Diversity of Life" by Edward O. Wilson; it has a very clear and non-technical description of exactly how speciation occurs, and is very relevant to this article.
Re:Grey areas... by Ben+Hutchings · 2003-01-13 07:00 · Score: 2

These nuances are almost always missed in evolution vs. creation debates.

It was a core argument of Darwin's Origin of Species (chapter 1, section 6) that there isn't a clear distinction between variation and speciation. Anyone who hasn't read the book is unqualified to engage in such debates on either side, in my opinion.

Lake Vostok by Joe+Jordan · 2003-01-12 17:38 · Score: 2

Even the unknown creatures that may live in Lake Vostok? Last I heard it was sorta hard to reach :)

Re:Good freakin' luck by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 17:39 · Score: 2

All you need is one cell for the DNA analysis.

That's a common misconception. DNA analysis is still a very haphazard process. We have tools like PCR to amplify small samples of DNA to the point where they can be analysed, but to say that one cell is enough is simply not true with current technology. You don't need much, but you certainly need many tens of thousands of cells to do a practical comparison or sequencing.

It won't be long before cheap DNA analyzers are available in every police station and hospital in the developed world, and in military bases around the world.

Actually, given the current technology and rate of advancement over the past 50 years, it'll be quite a long time before anything like that is available. Decades at least. Sorry. ;-)

--

I write in my journal

Interesting project, but kinda useless by Gyan · 2003-01-12 17:40 · Score: 2

All this will provide is a snapshot of the Earth's diverse species at a certain time, if successful.

How do they propose to go into the deep reaches of the Amazon basin or into northern Canada/Siberia ?

What about the minor localized species that exist now, but will be extinct in 20 years ? How do they plan to keep track of E V E R Y species and their current status ?

I see this as an idealistic endavour but not feasible.

It would be better to document the species that have more or less a direct impact on human living conditions and track them in detail. But I suppose that's already been done to a good extent.

Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Daetrin · 2003-01-12 18:23 · Score: 2

"What about the minor localized species that exist now, but will be extinct in 20 years ? How do they plan to keep track of E V E R Y species and their current status ?"
The whole _point_ of the endeavour is the "minor localized species that exist now, but will be extinct in 20 years." They don't want to keep track of current status, what they _want_ is a snapshot of the way things are now, before humans screw things up anymore than they already have.
Of course, once the snapshot is taken, keeping track of future changes is fairly trivial in comparison.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Gyan · 2003-01-12 19:15 · Score: 2

They don't want to keep track of current status, what they _want_ is a snapshot of the way things are now, before humans screw things up anymore than they already have.

Feasibility-wise, this would be pretty difficult.
By the time, you enter the last species in the database, thousands if not more, would have evolved or adapted in some way from the time they were archived.

There is hardly much point to the _point_ of the endavour. At best, it would be an archive of past splendor of life on Earth.

I'm not sure how keeping track of future changes would be trivial. How do you keep track of physiological changes in 50000 insect species over the whole globe ?
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:33 · Score: 2

There is hardly much point to the _point_ of the endavour. At best, it would be an archive of past splendor of life on Earth.
Oh come on, wouldn't you like to take a few years off, grab some funding, and go tramping around the four corners of the globe? Why else would someone come up with something like this? Heh.
I sense a movie about a scientist that goes wondering around South America looking for new species and getting chased by the headhunting natives for stealing a golden idol from a pyramid, only to run off to the middle east looking for species that were left behind by the jews to keep them out of Nazi hands...

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Daetrin · 2003-01-13 03:59 · Score: 2

There is hardly much point to the _point_ of the endavour. At best, it would be an archive of past splendor of life on Earth.
I'm having trouble dealing with the "what's the point" argument, and am tempted to fall back on the "what use is a baby" defense. Because we want to have samples available for future pharmaceutical research? Because we'd like to be able to restore any more species that go extinct in the future? Because we are human and have the desire for knowledge while it's still possible to know?
I'm not sure how keeping track of future changes would be trivial. How do you keep track of physiological changes in 50000 insect species over the whole globe?
I'm not really sure how they would go about it either, but if they can figure out how to doccument somewhere between 8 million and 98 million new species over the next 25 years (somewhere between 300,000 and 4 million species a year,) keeping track of any new species that pop up would be fairly simple in comparison.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Gyan · 2003-01-13 06:55 · Score: 2

"Because we are human and have the desire for knowledge while it's still possible to know?"

The project certainly is a noble goal. But given the

1)unimaginable amount of data
2)the spread of this data
3)the self-imposed timeframe
4)Manpower and resources required and subsequently the expenditure

I see it as an essentially pointless endavour. That's all.
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Daetrin · 2003-01-13 07:57 · Score: 2

What you're describing are not challenges to it's "pointedness," but rather a problem with the feasibility. The goal itself isn't pointless, and even if they don't achieve the full goal, the attempt itself isn't pointless. If they only managed to increase the rate of identification by just 1%, that would be an extra 2500 species identified in the 25 year span they're aiming for. If even one of those species is one that would have gone extinct before being catalogued without the extra effort, then how can you claim that effort is pointless? If that was the only positive result, i might grant you that it would have been an inefficient endeavor, but not a pointless one.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Gyan · 2003-01-13 08:08 · Score: 2

What you're describing are not challenges to it's "pointedness," but rather a problem with the feasibility.

I don't always consider a goal irrespective of the modus operandi used to achieve it. In this case, the goal when looked at ideally isn't pointless, but practically looking at the expenses,manpower,resources vs. feasibility angle, it is a pointless endeavour.

Better suited would be to isolate a certain section of the animal kingdom regionally and then solely concentrate there and completely try to catalog it. Maybe that's how they're planning to work this out. In that case, it would make more sense.
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Daetrin · 2003-01-13 09:01 · Score: 2

but practically looking at the expenses,manpower,resources vs. feasibility angle, it is a pointless endeavour.
Again, how is it a pointless endeavor? If they fail to document all animals within 25 years, then the knowledge from the ones that they _have_ documented won't suddenly dissapear. If you truely think it's a pointless endeavour, then the rate at which they accomplish it is totally irrelevant and they shouldn't bother at all.
Better suited would be to isolate a certain section of the animal kingdom regionally and then solely concentrate there and completely try to catalog it. Maybe that's how they're planning to work this out. In that case, it would make more sense.
Now you're talking about methodology, which is only tangentially related to the discussion. The goal of everyone in the field is to eventually have documented everything, this group is just saying that we should do it a lot quicker than we're currently going.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Interesting project, but kinda useless by Gyan · 2003-01-13 16:24 · Score: 2

If you truely think it's a pointless endeavour, then the rate at which they accomplish it is totally irrelevant and they shouldn't bother at all.

Like I said, here, I'm not considering the goal irrespective of the practicality of the methodology.

Given that there are finite scientists, finite resources, finite dollars and certainly finite time in the span of our lifetimes, it is better suited to set feasible goals (atleast for scientists !!!)

Surname project funding by Baldrson · 2003-01-12 17:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

I suggested this to E. O. Wilson about 12 years ago:

The various surname projects could be sold the right to name a species after their family as a kind of tribal totem. The ecological range of every species occupying a given area could then contribute to the purchase of that land area and stock holdings by various surname groups could control the land area. Areas with naturally higher biodiversity would have a lot more surname sales and therefore more tribal totems resident. This would be a good way to get people to identify their familial bloodlines with various species that would statistically favor preservation of high-biodiversity areas.

At the time few of the surname projects that now exist on the internet were had come into existence. I think there is a lot more support for this sort of genealogical identity these days and totems may be a real commodity to sell in preservation of biodiversity.

--
Seastead this.

Re:skeptical by MillionthMonkey · 2003-01-12 17:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not going to happen. They would first have to come up with an adequate universal definition of a species, and they haven't done that in the last 150 years (Darwin addressed this issue).

The lack of a definition for "species" is a problem for humans who like definitions, not for nature, which doesn't care if things become hard to define.
Some things, like pornography and race, are just not easily definable. Usually people use the standard of recognition (i.e. "I know it when I see it") which works well enough for most purposes.

To save a lot of digging. by Chuck+Chunder · 2003-01-12 17:50 · Score: 2

We'll leave a load of copies floating in orbit around the planet before we nuke each other out of existence.

When the next dominant species emerges from the sludge and reaches a stage where spaceflight is possible then they can just pick one up.

Then all the archaologists in the new species can down tools and start working on more forward looking matters, such as working out new ways to kill each other en-mass.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

CmdrTaco, Hemos, and CowboyNeal by helix400 · 2003-01-12 17:52 · Score: 2

They're all duplicates

Forget evolution! Beware taxonomists! by xixax · 2003-01-12 17:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Taxonomists will be renaming and reclassifying species at a greater rate than anyone can discover and name them.

Xix.

--
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"

Re:No Luck Yo by iggymanz · 2003-01-12 18:01 · Score: 2

...and last July a new species was discovered in Central Park right under our noses

But this project is a great idea & a good start anyway, to a project that will take 100+ years, I'm sure

Re:Asexual by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 18:02 · Score: 2

Well, you would... hm. You could... uh... hmm. Maybe sort them by color, or by smell, or by how well they go with bearnaise sauce?

I see your point.

--

I write in my journal

I'm a bit worried by long_john_stewart_mi · 2003-01-12 18:02 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm a bit worried about this idea. I thought the search was over the day they discovered Spam.

--
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...

Re:Good freakin' luck by Simon+Field · 2003-01-12 18:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Single cell analysis is fairly routine. You isolate a single cell, culture it, and analyze the colony.

But doing what you thought I was talking about is still not impossible -- amplifying the DNA of a single cell using the polymerase chain reaction, and fingerprinting what you get.

As for cheap DNA fingerprinting, we're close already. You may be thinking of a complete sequencer, where every base is accounted for. But a fingerprinter is just some enzymes to cut up the DNA in the right places, and some electrophoresis to separate the resulting fragments by molecular weight. This can be automated inexpensively if there is a big enough market for it. The forensic process has to be good enough to hold up in court. The species finder does not, as the results will have to be reproduced anyway, and a good hit on a new species would be enough to send the sample to a lab with better equipment.

--

Free book: Science Toys You Can Make

Re:skeptical by Kotetsu · 2003-01-12 18:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

It doesn't work because there are known counterexamples.Orchids come to mind first off. Almost any orchid you can purchase at a greenhouse is a hybrid. They even produce fertile offspring with crosses from different genera.

Here is a list of genera, including what they call them when they are intergenus crosses (and just for the letter "A"). If you take the genus "Allenara", it is a hybrid of the naturally occuring genera Cattleya, Diacrium, Epidendrum, and Laelia. You get a cross of four genera by making two hybrids (say Cattleya x Diacrium and Epidendrum x Laelia) and then crossing the two hybrids.

Maybe that definition will work for most things, but it's a mystery to me how they decide that this orchid is a different (or the same) species from that one, much less that they should be in different genera.

--

"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot

Problem is.. by Maniakes · 2003-01-12 18:05 · Score: 2

... there are more non-tasty specieses than tasty ones. Just like the every-flavor beans.

--
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.

Re:Problem is.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 18:15 · Score: 2

there are more non-tasty specieses than tasty ones

How do you figure?

See, this particular subject has a special fascination with me. I'm always surprised by what various cultures do and don't eat. Somewhere around the world, you can find somebody who will eat any creature that has enough mass (or that exists in sufficient quantities) to make it worth their while. For example, in America we never eat horsemeat-- we feed it to our animals-- but in France and Belgium it's considered a delicacy. I've had horsemeat-- it's often prepared like lamb or mutton-- and found it to be quite delicious.

I think every animal is tasty. It's just a question of finding a group of people who think it's okay to eat it.

(Of course, the rules change completely when you talk about plants. We can't eat most plants, simply because our digestive system isn't set up for it. We have to eat heavily processed plants, like flour made from grains; juvenile plants or plant by-products like fruit; or plants that have been specially bred over the millennia to be perpetually juvenile. If you were to just go out and grab a handful of good old Kentucky crabgrass, you'd find it to be a memorable meal, but not one you'd long to repeat.)

--

I write in my journal
Re:Problem is.. by JohnFluxx · 2003-01-12 18:29 · Score: 2

And they all taste something like, but not quite, like chicken.
Re:Problem is.. by Maniakes · 2003-01-12 18:36 · Score: 2

think every animal is tasty. It's just a question of finding a group of people who think it's okay to eat it.

(Of course, the rules change completely when you talk about plants

I was counting plants, fungi, and single-celled organism, most of which are probably not tasty. Most of these produce exciting chemicals that our bodies are not equipped to handle. Some species make these chemicals to avoid becoming salad, others as part of their metabolic processes.

I will grant that most animals would probably be tasty if you can get over the "ick" factor. I expect the only non-tasty animals would be the ones who produce poisonous or bitter-tasting chemicals specifically in order to be non-tasty.

Heck, I expect even worms would be tasty, properly prepared. Just about everything else we use as fish bait is (other fish, squid, clams, crawfish, rolled-up bread, etc).

--
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
Re:Problem is.. by superyooser · 2003-01-12 19:36 · Score: 2

Ted Nugent has a book out called Kill It and Grill It. Here's a little excerpt:
Ted Nugent likes to say, "You can't grill it until you kill it." Well, even if you don't kill it personally, now you can grill it just like the Nuge. In Kill It and Grill It, Ted Nugent shares his favorite recipes for such exotic fare as wild boar, pheasant, buffalo and venison.
PETA doesn't like Ted very much. :-)

Re:Evolution by Daetrin · 2003-01-12 18:07 · Score: 2

They are currently discovering 10,000 species a year. Even without speeding that rate up, we would have to see a complete replacement of every species on the planet with a new one every 1000 to 10,000 years (depending on how many species there are total) in order for us not to keep up with the rate of evolution. I think we might have noticed if species were changing that fast.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:skeptical by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-01-12 18:08 · Score: 2

Maybe all orchids really belong to the same species? ;-)

I see your point. Another poster already pointed out that my definition can't even be applied to asexual organisms, so it was dead before you even came along. Good info, though, about orchids.

--

I write in my journal

Deep Sea Life by euxneks · 2003-01-12 18:08 · Score: 2

I think it will be interesting to see the types of creatures that we find in the deepest depths of the ocean.. Maybe we might even get some pictures of the elusive Giant Squid!

--
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

Single cell PCR by Simon+Field · 2003-01-12 18:08 · Score: 2

You might want to read this.

They are doing PCR on single cells.

--

Free book: Science Toys You Can Make

All Species Foundation by webmaven · 2003-01-12 18:15 · Score: 4, Informative

This is the All Species Foundation, Kevin Kelly's latest brainchild.

Kevin Kelly basically figured out how to give away a billion dollars.

--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.

Re:All Species Foundation by webmaven · 2003-01-14 15:35 · Score: 2

A related point: Taxonomy, as a subdiscipline of Biology, is a dying art.

It's all the more important for the All Species project to get off the ground, because if it doesn't soon, there won't be anyone left to train the generation of Taxonomists necessary to do the job.

--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.

very achievable by Trailer+Trash · 2003-01-12 18:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seems that with our current rate of extinction it should be pretty easy. Hell, there may be no work to do; maybe all the ones tha we don't know about will be dead in 25 years anyway.

MDC

--
Do you have ESP?

Sure. by Suppafly · 2003-01-12 18:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

A hugely ambitious project to find and name every species on Earth within the next 25 years has been launched by scientists.

Haven't they been doing that for the last couple of hundred years? What makes them think the can do it in 25 when a few hundred years of science has just barely scrapped the surface.

If they need a good head start ... by Chiggy_Von_Richtoffe · 2003-01-12 18:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I could help them out, seeing as my room probably contains 300 or more here-to-unknown (or recently evolved) species alone (and i'm pretty sure i'm not the only slashdotter in this situation.

How to go through millions of species? by Decimal+Dave · 2003-01-12 18:29 · Score: 2

One way this group might go about collecting samples from every species (particulary from the ocean, where the greatest variety resides) is to run a sort of filter through the water/atmosphere at various depths, catching all manner of critters. Then, dump all the animals into some sort of machine that grinds them up processes them to collect DNA information which could be sorted into a large database.

The major drawback is that we might not know what sort of creature a specific entry represents or even what it looks like... but at least we could catagorize a lot of things in a short amount of time.

I'm not sure the technology exists to analyze so much organic material, but that could be something to work for.

--

"Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho

Re:How to go through millions of species? by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:42 · Score: 2

One way this group might go about collecting samples from every species (particulary from the ocean, where the greatest variety resides) is to run a sort of filter through the water/atmosphere at various depths, catching all manner of critters. Then, dump all the animals into some sort of machine that grinds them up processes them to collect DNA information which could be sorted into a large database.
Or,
I can just point my tricorder at it.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Proving a negative... by jtdubs · 2003-01-12 18:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Wow, I'm glad scientists have finally found a way around that pesky problem of not being able to prove negatives.

Now we can finally prove that:

a) There does not exist a species that we haven't found.
b) God does not exist.

These scientists seem to be morons if the slashdot headline is accurate (that'll be the day). An ambitious undertaking would have been to catalog 10x as many species next year as most years, and to continue doing so until we think we have them all. An impossible undertaking is to show that we haven't missed any in the process.

Justin Dubs

Re:Proving a negative... by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:44 · Score: 2

An impossible undertaking is to show that we haven't missed any in the process.
This isn't entirely true. We could just nuke the world, in which case there wouldn't be any life left.
Conversely, we can just let the boy bands...
Ok, I couldn't figure out how to make a boy band joke out of this. Time for bed.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:Proving a negative... by jtdubs · 2003-01-13 15:30 · Score: 2

But, again, there'd be no way to prove the absence of life after the nuke-fest has ended.

Conversely, we can just let the boy bands run rampant, and everyone will have sex, and there will be LOTS of life. But none of it will be intelligent.

Oh well, I tried.

Justin
Re:Proving a negative... by junkgrep · 2003-01-13 19:05 · Score: 2

---Wow, I'm glad scientists have finally found a way around that pesky problem of not being able to prove negatives.---

I would hope so, considering that the statement "not being able to prove a negative" is, itself, a negative.

You CAN prove negatives. There is no general rule against it.

Must not apply to microbes... by Tuxinatorium · 2003-01-12 18:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are so many varieties and they evolve so quickly, that it would be impossible to catalog all of them because there are constantly new species being made. Besides, the distinction between divergent strains of a species and different but related species is completely arbitrary on that scale, because they don't have sexual reproduction. In mammals, the ability to produce fertile offspring generally draws the boundaries between species.

--
Repeal the DMCA!

Environmentalists: Just Say No! by crashnbur · 2003-01-12 18:47 · Score: 2

It occurs to me that one of the largest barriers to finding all the species on earth in the past has been that so many of them are hidden deep in the Amazon rain forest. Exactly how do we plan to find them without destroying what has not yet been destroyed? Okay, assume that's accomplished. Then what? So we've found and named every species on earth! Good job! You get a cookie! Umm... Now what did that get us?

I fail to see where this is a practical endeavor.

NP, Just Have a Look In My Refrigerator... by Myriad · 2003-01-12 18:51 · Score: 2

"Scientist X declares 'we have identified EVERY living species on the face of the planet. Prove us wrong!'"

Hey, no problem, just have a peek inside my fridge, all sorts of new and exotic life forms growing in there.

I'd be cautious about doing the DNA testing though - I don't know if your gear will freak out at a triple helix strand.

--
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'

This seems impossible! by antdude · 2003-01-12 19:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Scientists are still finding new species of ants frequently. The last number was 11,006 according to Antbase.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Re:This seems impossible! by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:49 · Score: 2

Scientists are still finding new species of ants frequently. The last number was 11,006 according to Antbase
Does that include my Aunt Janet?

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:This seems impossible! by octalgirl · 2003-01-12 23:56 · Score: 2

They found 'Gladiator' only a few decades ago.

Re:skeptical by Bicoid · 2003-01-12 19:43 · Score: 5, Informative

Dingos can mate with dogs and produce fertile offspring. Dogs can mate with wolves and procuce fertile offspring. However, Dingos cannot mate with wolves and still produce fertile offspring.

In othe words, your definition is flawed because it assumes that species are static, whereas they REALLY are always in the process of splitting into multiple species. Plus, there's that time thing. A species not only has to be able to be classified solidly in today's environment, but it also needs to have a set classification that spans time so that we can deal with paleontological species as well. And since you can't mate two Tyrannosaurus skeletons and see if they produce viable offspring...well, I'm sure you get the point.

--
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?

simplifying the problem by g4dget · 2003-01-12 19:55 · Score: 2

And we are simplifying the problem by killing off most species first--then we don't have to to bother identifying and cataloging them.

Re:The real question is by below_the_sea · 2003-01-12 20:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

The cataloging bit is not so much the goal here. Nor is completeness. As you can read in the article, the people who are currently trying to preserve parts of nature can't make proper decisions on which bits to preserve and which to neglect because of their lower conservational value.

Most conservation efforts start with identifying what's actually present inside an area. For a few groups such as birds, mammals, and butterflies, we have a pretty good knowledge of who's present, despite the occasional deer being discovered in Vietnam or the ten or so new bird species Peru has reveiled over the last few years. But in most groups, which actually account for 99% of biodiversity were are at a complete loss. So much for making sound judgements on where to make the next National Parks.

In order to know how much biodiversity actually needs to be preserved to for instance keep speciation going, or to keep extinction at a minimum, we have to get some basic insight into current state of affairs. Again, just knowing what species you're dealing with is a prerequisite if you want to obtain a global picture.

So from a practical point of view, completeness of the database is not essential. Getting our working knowledge of species from 1% to 50% would be a great step forward, and would probably be enough to obtain much better estimates of extinction rates.

As to how to even get DNA from all those millions of species, most of which have such small ranges and thrive in low numbers in inhospitable places, I can't say I have much of a clue either.

Anthropology by ndogg · 2003-01-12 20:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

They should start asking the indiginous people of the various places they go to about the animals they encounter, especially if they are nomadic. The folklore, myths, traditions, stories, etc. often serve purposes beyond that of creating a basis for religion. Many of them have been created to help them survive the environment they live in. Not only that, but they also seem to allow to live within these environments without destroying them. This is something anthropologists have known for some time now. Western biologists often have the bad habit of dismissing these things, particularly if they are tribal, under the misconceived notion that they are "primitive" and could not possibly understand the plants and animals around them, when in fact it's their vast amounts of knowledge of the plants and animals around them that allows them to survive.

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"

Find them all in 25 years? Impossible! by Alsee · 2003-01-12 20:34 · Score: 2

I've been searching for nearly 6 years and I can't even find all my socks!

Anyway, if they want to try they can start by checking the unidentified species growing under my bathroom sink. I tried killing it a few times but, uhhh... I've learned that it is a very very bad idea to make it angry.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:Find them all in 25 years? Impossible! by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:54 · Score: 2

Anyway, if they want to try they can start by checking the unidentified species growing under my bathroom sink. I tried killing it a few times but, uhhh... I've learned that it is a very very bad idea to make it angry.
*goes and looks under the sink*
Hey dude, that's my WIFE!

--
Like what I said? You might like my music

Underwater by mccalli · 2003-01-12 20:59 · Score: 2

So, are they heading down into the depths of the sea then? There's very little known about that environment so far...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:skeptical by fucksl4shd0t · 2003-01-12 22:13 · Score: 2

Usually people use the standard of recognition (i.e. "I know it when I see it") which works well enough for most purposes.

At the risk of going offtopic, here goes. :)

The problem with this standard is that it only works on an individual level. Take love, for example. The most common definition of love that I've run across is "You'll know it when you feel it." Using this definition, I have seen quite a few couples get together and then get un-together because their definitions of love didn't mix. Each one knew that they loved the other, but the other didn't live up to some standard.

The reason this type of standard of recognition can't be used in science is because it depends on an individual viewpoint, and one of the fundamental principals of science is duplication. Without being able to duplicate somethign (research, observation, experimentation, etc.) with predictable results, then you can only continue to observe without concluding. When it comes time to conclude, your conclusions must be able to be duplicated by other scientists with completely different viewpoints (or worldviews, if you prefer).