Slashdot Mirror


94 New Species Described By CA Academy of Sciences

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the California Academy of Sciences traversed four continents and two oceans to uncover 94 new species in 2009, proving that while sometimes in this digital age the world can feel like a small place, much of it has yet to be explored. Among the 94 discoveries were 65 arthropods, 14 plants, 8 fishes, 5 sea slugs, one coral, and one fossil mammal. Why does it matter? As Dr. David Mindell, Dean of Science and Research Collections at the Academy, explained, 'Humans rely on healthy ecosystems, made up of organisms and their environments. Creating a comprehensive inventory of life on our planet is critical for understanding and managing resources. Yet a great many life-forms remain to be discovered and described.'"

10 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Pfff. We live off an ECONOMY, not some ecosystem by weston · · Score: 5, Funny

    'Humans rely on healthy ecosystems, made up of organisms and their environments."

    And that, my friends, is a prime example of what soft liberal earth-worship thinking will get you. We don't get our fuels or building materials or other raw materials from the "ecosystem" -- we smite the earth and take them out by force of will and machines built by the human mind. We don't hunt and gather like savages, and we don't even use primitive low yield agriculture -- we use industry powered by investment to get our food and textiles. And you think nature just made your Droid? That's intelligent design in action, not evolution.

    We live off an ECONOMY. Ecosystems are made-up concepts by hippy-dippy types who'd rather save the life of some spotted owl than let a hard-working man earn an honest dollar. If ecosystems were valuable, you'd pay for them.

  2. Re:Pfff. We live off an ECONOMY, not some ecosyste by Ostracus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If ecosystems were valuable, you'd pay for them."

    Now, or later?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  3. "Managing resources" by macraig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah, see, there's the problem right there: we shouldn't be trying to do that. We're lousy at it. We should be focusing all of our limited PHB managerial skills on managing ourselves and our own six-fold overpopulation, not trying to manage everything else.

    1. Re:"Managing resources" by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Old view have a big family is what is less helpful in population. But honestly, 1st world countries aren't the problem when it comes to over-population. It is 3rd world countries where they are starving to death and decide it'd be a fantastic idea to have 6 kids.

      On a related note the best thing to do to fix this problem is to educate the women in africa, when educated birth rates plummet (which is a good thing).

  4. Re:Pfff. We live off an ECONOMY, not some ecosyste by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dude are you serious? On the off chance that you are, perhaps you should do a little research. You'll find out that supermarket shelves are in fact not plants, and that canned foods are not fruits that grow there without human intervention.

    That's the problem with cities: People living in them become totally ignorant of the fact that despite not having to see it even once in a typical city-dweller's lifetime, the ecosystem is absolutely crucial to the survival of every man, woman and child, even if they never leave the concrete of the city.

    Even the most processed of trashy foods requires, as a basic first step ingredient, some product of an ecosystem. Farms are not self-sustaining, without healthy, pollution-free rain, there are no crops or feeding paddocks. Without healthy bees, there is no honey. Without healthy birds, locusts would decimate crops.

    It should be compulsory for every high schooler to spend one month of every year of school working on a farm. It's time we stopped schooling our kids to be cogs in the mindless machine of urban society and started educating them to be fully aware citizens of Mankind.

    --
    I hate printers.
  5. Re:Pfff. We live off an ECONOMY, not some ecosyste by weston · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dude are you serious?

    No.

  6. Re:What makes them new species? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    The definition you refer to is the biological species definition. Normally when that definition is used the offspring need to not just produce viable offspring, but the offspring need to be fertile (thus donkeys and horses are different species since mules are viable but not fertile). However, this definition doesn't work perfectly. For example, a small fraction of mules (I think around 1%) can actually reproduce. So are donkeys and horses different species? The real issue is that biology is messy and nature is inherently fuzzy. Thus, one gets for examples what are called ring species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species. In a ring species, one has three populations, A, B and C. Members of A can interbreed to produce fertile offspring with members of B. Members of B can reproduce with members of C. But, members of A cannot produce fertile offspring with members of C. Essentially, under the biological species definition "is the same species" is not a transitive relation. That's bad.

    The definition runs into other problems as well. For example, the definition forces every asexual organism to be its own species by a strict reading. Thus, there have been other proposed definitions of a species.

    Every definition has its own advantages and disadvantages. However none of them is perfect. This is precisely what we would expect: if species lines were easily definable and clear cut, that would be really hard to reconcile with any form of evolutionary theory other than some sort of "hopeful monster" argument, which have been widely discredited. The blurry nature of species boundaries is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution.

    There's been a lot of thought on the general definition of species and whether these definitions are simply labeling conveniences or reflect genuine biological principles. I've been told that John Wilkins' book "Species: A History of the Idea" is a very good primer for these issues. I haven't read it, but I did read Wilkins' PhD thesis and so can say that he's an engaging and thoughtful and fun writer. So this is probably what to read if you want more info.

  7. On the sixth day of Earth Day... by RevWaldo · · Score: 2, Funny

    A treehugger gave to me
    14 plants oxygenating
    5 sea slugs
    65 creeping arthropods
    8 swimming fishes
    One coral reef
    And a fossilized raccoon dog from an ancient lake bed.

  8. Re:What makes them new species? by ascari · · Score: 2, Funny

    Easy. They were still shrink wrapped.

  9. Re:Pfff. We live off an ECONOMY, not some ecosyste by rockNme2349 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am a programmer, and I am a big fan of the "need to know" basis. If I am curious I like to learn how things work, but when I am working efficiently I just assume functions and libraries will do exactly what they claim to, and write my code based off of that.

    Living in cities has enabled us to abstract the bare necessities. Since we do not need to worry about where our food comes from, or how it is made; just that it will be there when we need it, we can focus ourselves more intensely on other subjects, increasing the net productivity of society as a whole. Granted in the event of a natural disaster of epic proportions most of the society would die off due to lack of basic survival skills. It is a gamble.

    --
    Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."