Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

94 New Species Described By CA Academy of Sciences 52

Posted by samzenpus
from the what's-in-a-name dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

94 New Species Described By CA Academy of Sciences

Comments Filter:
  • '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.

    • by Ostracus (1354233) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:55PM (#30468356) Journal

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

      Now, or later?

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Cryacin (657549)
        Don't worry, Al Gore will save us!
      • Well I got all my recent furniture interest free till June 2010. I'll make a deal like that with the planet; I'll do what we want now, and later I'll pay for it, K? Earth knows I'm good for it.
        • by Golddess (1361003)
          The problem with that of course is that our parents and our parents parents and our parents parents parents going back till dunno when have been doing that same thing. "Oh Earth, you know I'm good for it." Then they die and pass the burden onto their kids, who say the same thing while continuing to add to the balance that must be paid for at some time. "Oh Earth, you know I'm good for it."

          But this can't go on forever. Eventually it will reach the breaking point, and Earth will say "PAY UP OR GTFO!"
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MrNaz (730548) *

      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 neve

      • Dude are you serious?

        No.

        • by GaelTadh (916987)

          Yet you get modded insightful +2 and are 1st visible comment.
          I don't know what to say except .... well done :)

        • Sadly the fact that you have to verify that doesn't reflect poorly on /.s ability to pick up sarcasm. But rather some of the ridiculous positions people hold on the internet (getting modded insightful). I assumed sarcasm, guess that means there is still some optimism left in me. Or I could have noticed that you at least make fun of glenn beck so you are at least left of him...
      • by feepness (543479)

        ...the ecosystem is absolutely crucial to the survival of every man, woman and child, even if they never leave the concrete of the city.

        And this is why it's so crucial that we take the right steps in protecting it, rather than the politically expedient ones.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rockNme2349 (1414329)

        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, inc

        • 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 updating our twitter status and choosing which brand of coffee to drink.

          ftfy

    • As long as the hippie scientists are not eating into your pie, why do you care? Someone has a perception or standard of "value" different from yours. News at 11.

      Or if they *are*, fight them. Even better, fight them "honestly". Stop whining.

    • Everything you consume at one point came from an ecosystem...so in a round about way....yeah you ARE paying for them and they ARE valuable.

      And jeese....whats up with all the liberal/hippy bashing or did I miss some sarcasm in there or something?



      Just realized HTML tags work here hehe.
    • by RockDoctor (15477)

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

      I'd like your grandchildren to pay for my despoliation of their ecosystem before they were conceived, please. Isn't that a nice, symmetrical distribution of costs and benefits ; I take the benefits and they pay the costs.
      But if you wanted to make things less uneven, you can't ask my grandchildren to pay for your despoliation of their ecosystem unless you manage to reverse my sterilisation without me noticing it (as a side topic, you'd have to persuade my wife

  • by macraig (621737) <mark DOT a DOT craig AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:00PM (#30468410)

    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.

    • by maxume (22995)

      Kill a hippy today!

      • by macraig (621737)

        Probably a good idea. They caused that whole Summer of Love orgy business.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Idiomatick (976696)
          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).
          • by macraig (621737)

            I know about about birth rates being an inverse proportion to standard of living; that applies to EVERY creature, not just H. sapiens. I was trying to be sarcastic and funny in response to the GGP, however.

          • It isn't that simplistic. A lot of the developing world agriculture goes to make foreign exchange hard currency to support the local warlord/junta and wall street fatcats and the IMF, the food production there goes to the developed world instead of feeding the local population *first*. There's much less need for "food aid" when the local agriculture has as a priority a diverse system dedicated at the first level to feeding their own people, rather than vast monoculture farms dedicated to overseas exports.

  • Hey CA Academy of Sciences, Please patent the species (including all genetic code) you discovered/described, and grant free use under open license. "Biologists" and "geneticists" discover lots of things, of which many of the useful ones end up being owned by "Big Pharma" or "Agribusiness." As an experiment (or a friendly competition), see what the "Open-source community" does with the 93 still-extant species you discovered last year.
  • by RevWaldo (1186281) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @11:26PM (#30468570)
    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.
  • In the big picture, DNA and life are just giant software programs. So they just discoverd 94 new utilities. We humans are trying to reverse engineer the code of life. When we succeed that will be endgame. There will be no need for economies if we have the power of life at our fingertips. AKA God. Programming in C++ or whatever are other attempts that will be superseeded by other languages. I predict ultimately the only thing valuable left on earth when we can program life will be life itself, the real evolv
    • Me too, but without guessing the exact ones, we'll never know which to attach our disembodied brains too with our genetically engineered, brain-payload parasites.
    • There will be no need for economies if we have the power of life at our fingertips. AKA God

      Don't forget thermodynamics. Being able to alter our own biology does not change the fact that we will continue to need energy.

    • In the big picture, DNA and life are just giant software programs.

      In the big picture, all software analogies breakdown.

      There will be no need for economies if we have the power of life at our fingertips.

      Case and point. Unless you actually believe that humans will no longer struggle-for/barter/buy power over the Earth's/Solar System's/Galaxy's/Universe's inherently limited resources just because we figured out how to live forever (violent deaths aside). The Great Basin Bristlecone Pine [wikipedia.org] still struggles to gather resources for itself with all it's energy despite it's effective immortality when compared to the mayfly.

  • Out of 94 new species,less the fossil and coral, how many actually taste good?
    Hey, if they're gonna hang out here, they might as well be worth the space they take up.

  • Wherever they went, I want to stay far away from it.

    • by ethogram (1094021)
      Arthropods are a lot more than spiders, including things like insects (most of which are non-venomous) and crustaceans (some of which many people consider tasty). I would have been happy to hear about 65 new Arachnids, but that's not what the post said.
  • But do any of these new sea slugs produce ADAM [wikipedia.org]?
  • While it's nice to hear of new species being discovered, 94 is not a large number in this context, and you certainly don't need to travel all round the globe to find new species. They're everywhere around us, in every nook and cranny of the biosphere, in the air and inside rocks (even a few miles down), living on the surface of larger organisms and also inside. Even our bodies are hosts to unknown species --- like all higher animals, we're really just mobile habitats for smaller forms of life, and whereve

  • "Fish". I believe the plural of fish is fish.
  • Great that we are finding new species! If we keep this up maybe we can replace the ones that are going extinct with these new ones. Besides, the other ones were getting old anyway.

3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound

Working...