Every Species on Earth 308
nickynicky9doors writes: "National Geographic News relates that scientists to date have identified less than 2 million distinct species with from 10 million to more than 100 million still undiscovered. Likening this dearth of information to doing chemistry knowing only one third of the periodic table, biologist Terry Gosliner is involved in the All Species Foundation. The foundation is attempting to discover, identify and classify every living species and place the catalogue online over the next 25 years. It is hoped new technology and new recruits to the field of taxonomy will make the timetable viable."
We're also missing some math... (Score:3, Funny)
Seems to this non-biologist that it's more like knowing only 1/5th to 1/50th (or to be more precise, 1/50th to 1/5th) of the periodic table...
The math effects are not linear (Score:2)
``But seriously folks,'' add to this the 250,000+ species known from fossils [leaderu.com] and it should be clear that at least every 8th-to-80th transitional form should have shown up in the fossil record we've exhumed so far (BTW, the above ref cites TL Erwin in The Tropical Forest Canopy within Biodiversity, 1988, NAP (WA DC) for a generous ceiling of 30 million species, mostly insects). If we had equal parts transitional and stable species (really, we need many times that because most attempted changes would fail according to any reasonable theory), for example, there should be an absolute scratching minimum of about 2,000 known transitional species discovered in the fossil record by now.
While we're having fun, take DM Raup's figure of 99.9% ( Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? [wwnorton.com] , 1991, WW Norton NY - see this too [arn.org] for commentary and a ceiling of 40M species) extinct species, there should be at least 20 transitional species alive today, and using the 10-30 million species range vs 2 million known, we should have found somewhere between 1 and 4 of those by now.
Maybe one of those is Santa's reindeer? Which, BTW, are probably [snopes2.com] female...
Re:Not quite congruent there... (Score:2)
Re:erroneous generalization (Score:2)
Heh using my nickname to draw the conclusion that I know anything about aligators is an 'erroneous generalization'.
I see an element as being similar to saying 'vertibrate'. Vertibrate is a class of animal, animals with a backbone. A species, though, would be, metaphorically (simile?), a product that you create with chemicals. Diet Coke would be a species, like a coyote and a dog would be. But the 'element name' of a dog or coyote might be something like canine, or quadriped, or sometihng like that. (I don't really know if coyotes and dogs are canines, but lets pretend they are, then you'll get my point.)
I think the general point that blurb in the article about the periodic table was making was that without knowing what every type of animal is out there, then they won't have all of the classifications of what a similar group of animals fals into. If they're expecting to find another 25 million species out there, then there are likely animals they can't classify like 'canines'.
I think I should have fleshed this out in my earlier post, and I'm sorry about that. I don't know if you saw it or not, but the 'helium bomb' comment was a sarcastic response to somebody saying the only difference between elements is a few particles. *Shrug*
I think my response is pretty clear now. The original author's assesement was more accurate than the person's who responded to it.
Humans and counting (Score:1, Troll)
I think the stats are:
???? -> 1900 - 75 species extinct
1900 -> 1970 - 75 more species exitinct
1970 -> now - 75,000 species extinct
Do we really wanna find them all?
Re:Humans and counting (Score:2, Informative)
I believe that may be inaccurate. [park.org]
Re:Humans and counting (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course you are right in implying that the parent post has little if any merit as a valid relation.
Re:Humans and counting (Score:2)
I certainly didn't provide the stats for any other reason than potential food for thought. I'm certainly not saying the sky is falling, although its hard to disprove that humans are responsible for extinctions for reasons other than over hunting in a way that no species has been responsible for other species' extinction before.
Re:Humans and counting (Score:2)
As far as extinction goes. It happens. It happened in the past, it will continue to happen. I for one am for letting things happen as they do. When the dinos roamed it was for the most part hot, humid, and much like what we are heading for. If that is the case fine. If it kills off 90% of the species currently alive, fine. It happened before and new species formed.
Re:Humans and counting (Score:2)
Draw the line! (Score:2)
True, in these widely divergent cases, but what else shall we exterminate?
Lions? [Y/n]
Sharks? [Y/n]
Dolphins? [Y/n]
Where do you draw the line? And yes, dolphins do kill people, in some places more people than sharks.
Re:Humans and counting (Score:4, Interesting)
What is in dispute is the value humans give to diversity.
-There is economic value to diversity in the form useful genes and groups of genes. Also, zoos and nature documentaries are fairly lucrative.
-There is ethical value to diversity. While you may not care much about the wonderful variety of organisms, there are a great many people who do. And that matters.
As for the value of searching out new species --- you can never predict the value of a scientific endeavour. In this case however, you can make an educated guess that discovering new species will provide new insight into evolutionary, ecological, anatomical, physiological, genetic, biochemical, and behavioural processes. That in itself is quite a return on the investment! Imagine what the world would be like if no one had gone out looking for archaebacteria. We wouldn't know about taq polymerase, an enzyme isolated from the archaebacterium Thermophilus aquaticus -- the world wouldn't have the polymerase chain reaction as we know it, and that means genetic research would be hampered to some degree. You just NEVER know what you're gonna find if you go looking. You're bound to be surprised.
Someone already mentioned the dodo... I would add to that by mentioning the Calvaria major tree. Without the dodo to ingest its seeds and prepare them for germination, the tree is doomed in its natural habitat. No C. major trees have sprouted since the dodo went the way of the dodo. I believe there currently is a group that's trying to preserve the species by using turkeys instead to digest the seed coat. Now consider all those other species suffering a similar fate because their ecologies aren't well understood.
Re:Go chain yourself to a DANG TREE (Score:2)
well, God was certainly alot more popular in the stone age, so I'd say you're the chronologically displaced one
</cheapshot>
Argh, I couldn't resist.
Is it possible to catalogue all LIVING things? (Score:1)
Re:Is it possible to catalogue all LIVING things? (Score:2)
With this in mind, I doubt everything will ever be counted.
Non-Human Life Forms (Score:2, Funny)
LISTER: Sir, it's Rimmer!
Pyramid Scheme (Score:5, Funny)
Just classify a bug and send this email to 10 of your friends, and put your name at the bottom of the list, and remove the person at the top of the list!
10 to 100 million what?? (Score:1)
Re:10 to 100 million what?? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:10 to 100 million what?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Estimates have varied widely. The one thing we do know is that there are a lot more undescribed than described species.
Why do non-scientists always greet an honest statement of uncertainty in the actual number - an order-of-magnitude estimate - with derision of this sort?
After all, a hell of a lot of software schedule estimates are no more precise. Mozilla comes to mind...
Re:10 to 100 million what?? (Score:2)
As we continue to collect more data, we're going to see many more of these borderline cases, and the "splitters" are going to count two or three times as many species as the "lumpers" in the well characterized populations.
Re:10 to 100 million what?? (Score:2)
The same is true of at least one species here in North America, too
Re:10 to 100 million what?? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is estimated using various sampling procedures. In simplified form, you can sparsely sample a large area for some taxon of interest. That gives you a low estimate of the number of species (you know you're missing lots of rare ones). Then you progressively more intensely sample smaller areas. (Why not intensely sample large areas? It's simply not possible to do it with available labor, plus intensive sampling tends to be destructive.) After a series of these efforts, culminating in complete sampling of very small areas (e.g. bagging an entire tree, gassing it, and identifying every single insect on it), you have a relationship between the intensity of sampling and the number of species (of a particular group) that you find. You can use that relationship to make (admittedly gross) estimates of how many species are still undiscovered in the rest of the sparsely-sampled world.
Re:10 to 100 million what?? (Score:2)
Re:10 to 100 million what?? (Score:2, Interesting)
The technique they use to estimate this is called a species-area curve [utk.edu]. As others have explained, you intensely survey a very small piece of land, and can statistically correlate that to how many species you'll find in a larger area.
Some regions, like the tropical rainforest, are very high in species. You might have a certain type of plant that has five insect species that can only survive on that plant, and those insects might have little parasite wasps in them that specialize only in that insect, etc.
That's why instinctions rates of species can be confusing. A few types of ecosystems are biodiversity hotspots [infomanage.com]. You might find ten thousand distinct speies in a cubic meter. Whether these species are as "important" as a less-specialized species that is more widespread and adaptable is a matter for debate. But in terms of estimating the total number of species, the species area curve holds across different types of ecosystems. As you spread out from the small plot you surveyed in detail, you encounter new species and repeat species at a predictable rate, until you hit a new type of ecosystem.
A really good article called How many species are there on Earth?" [ciesin.org] explains all of this in much greater and more accurate detail.
Seperating species (Score:1)
Re:Seperating species (Score:2, Informative)
Example 1 : Cocker Spanial, golden retriever: can interbreed therefore same species.
Example 2: Donkey, horse, makes mule but mule is sterile therefore donkey and horse are different species.
Re:Seperating species (Score:2)
A good example:
Hermit and Townsend's warblers live at different altitudes in the PNW's Cascade range, with correspondingly different forest characteristics.
There's a very small zone of overlap and within that zone they hybridize freely, giving rise to fertile offspring.
Yet the zone of hyrbridization is, as best we can tell, fixed and there's no significant intermingling of genetic information between the vast majority of either species. Genetic drift alone is sufficient to guarantee that they'll continue to grow apart.
Clearly these are two species. Almost as clearly, the speciation event was fairly recent.
Spotted and Barred owls are similar. Barred owls gradually arrived in PNW coniferous forests, trailing industrial logging. The resulting clearcuts regenerated into the kind of thick cover preferred by these owls.
Given the patchwork nature of clearcutting in these forests, it was inevitable that Spotted and Barred Owls would compete for territories in at least some areas containing mixed habitat, as the nesting territories for each species is large.
And as it turns out, they do interbreed and produce fertile young occassionally (the kids that are produced are called "sparred" owls).
But not frequently and despite the profound hopes of the timber industry, certainly not to any degree that would cause taxonomists to "lump" the two into a single species. Reproductive isolation has been maintained, to a large extent.
Taxonomy isn't nearly as simple as most folks think.
They should start with species-at-risk (Score:2, Insightful)
Any animal that competes with human beings, is a threat to human beings, or requires undisturbed access large pieces of land in areas close to human habitation should be done first. Elephants, tigers, grizzly bears, etc.
Also, better look at any plant or animal that has a high degree of integration with their ecosphere (global warming will change their ecosphere faster than they can adapt).
Oh, anything at either poles - human-based pollutants seem to gravitate to these areas.
Better get everything in the ocean as well - over fishing and other human activities is disrupting the food chain.
Any animal or plant that lives in any forest that is accessible by the logging companies probably should be classified early, as well.
Finally, any animal that has "trophy" value or is poached for body parts to be made into aphrodisiacs won't be around for long.
Re:They should start with species-at-risk (Score:2)
"Hi I'm Troy McLure. You may remeber me from such films as 'Man vs. Nature: The Road to Victory!".
--
Garett
Re:They should start with species-at-risk (Score:4, Interesting)
See... the problem is you are looking for things you know to exist, but you can't really identify them by sight. You have to analyze the specimine to determine if it has been classified already. Also, I have to believe that the VAST majority of those 100 Million species are very small... tiny insects through microscopic marine life and bacteria.
I guess if we don't know a species even exists, we can't really determine if it's "at risk" yet. Granted, I think you are correct in saying we should start in the more fragile ecosystems.
Bottom line, it is a daunting task!
Jason
Re:They should start with species-at-risk (Score:2)
You might be surprised. While I doubt that they'll be a sudden boom in the sasquatch finding industry, there may be more reasonable sized land vertrabrates around than we expect. Every year, a few more are found in the rain forests of South America (that is, those species that don't wind up caught in the treads of a bulldozer. Or maybe that's how we find them), including rodents, monkies, snakes, and the like. A number of quite large (deer-cow sized) animals have been found, or rediscovered for the first time since the turn of the century, in areas of Asia. There are whole regions of Cambodia, for instance, that are basically untouched since the start of the war, that are only now being explored. Scientists have found entire herds of animals in this region, never described before. So there may be a good deal left to find.
I'm writing to Noah (Score:2, Funny)
For the sea, I suppose I could just use another scientific principle. Take a litre of sea water, identify the number of species in it, and multiply by the volume of the sea.
For the air, I'll command a NASA spy sattelite and have it log images to a website, and have all of
Hows that?
They can start by looking in my fridge (Score:4, Funny)
Imagine . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Imagine . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
The trick is that you wouldn't have to worry about sea creatures or most insects, which could probably survive on their own, and there are really very few very large animals that would require lots of room.
Regardless of whether or not one is of a religious persuasion or believes in the Ark story, it was an interesting read. *shrug*
Re:Imagine . . . (Score:2)
That's a big ark, dude
Re:Imagine . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Count me out... (Score:5, Funny)
What do you mean, not those kind of bugs?
Species (Score:3, Interesting)
If you were to see, for the first time, a chihuahua and a St. Bernard next to each other, you might be tempted to label them as separate species at first, when in reality they're just different breeds of the same species. It would take a lot of study to determine how closely they were actually related.
If you draw the lines differently, you could probably get some extremely wild variations in the count for the number of species on Earth.
How did they come by that estimate? (Score:3, Insightful)
I read the article and it doesn't seem to offer any evidence other than speculation as to where this number comes from. It seems kinda large to me. I know humans don't occupy *every* place on the planet, but there are very few areas within the top 10,000 feet of the Earth's crust that aren't accessible to humans already. Are they suggesting that life is blossoming in the mantle?
How exactly did scientists come upon this number?
Re:How did they come by that estimate? (Score:2)
I'll bet you that right this moment, an "undiscovered" species of insect is being squished by some annoyed guy in Africa.
Re:How did they come by that estimate? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I understand correctly, most of the species are of things we see every day but don't bother classifying - insects, fungi, bacteria, and so forth. There's a lot of space down at the bottom of the pyramid, and with short generations and (for bacteria, at least) a high mutation rate, species differentiate a lot faster than at the top.
If every given hundred-kilometre-radius area has a hundred local subspecies of bug or bacterium, it'll take quite a while and a lot of manpower to catalogue them all.
How exactly did scientists come upon this number?
My guess: By taking a really thorough survey of *all* life within test areas in various countries, and checking to see what fraction of the distinct species found were ones we knew about.
There's quite a bit of uncertainty in the figures you'll arrive at from this, but you can certainly get a ballpark estimate. So far, the estimate is that we don't know about most species.
Taxonomy... (Score:5, Informative)
1. Taxonomy is really important. Most of biology rests on good taxonomy.
2. Good taxonomic work requires massive amounts of work and training.
3. Bad taxonomy is worse than no taxonomy.
4. Taxonomic work is massively under funded and under appreciated... and it will continue to be so... as long as the tenure system requires lots of high profile papers (which taxonomy papers are not high profile and they take a long time to write).
The more taxonomy is appreciated the better, and I really hope that they pull it off... But we have a better chance of microsoft embracing the open source software movement.
MAK
Re:Taxonomy... (Score:2)
Taxonomy is incredibly important. It is the foundation upon which biology rests.
Ignorant Question.. (or maybe not..) (Score:2)
Impossible Target (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, take places like Lake Vostok [bbc.co.uk]. Possibly there is life in here, and if there is there is possibly life elsewhere entombed under a million years of ice.
Added to this is there is a certain vagueness as to what a species actually is. I can't remember the details, but there is a species of bird (a gull I think) that is present round to world. As you go from east to west the individuals change slightly, but can still interbreed (which is, more or less, the definition of what a species is). Whoever, once you go round the world you get back to where you started, the individuals either side of the start line can no longer interbreed with those on the other side of the line. (I'd draw an ascii diagram but I can't really be bothered fighting the lameness filter). Are all these individuals one species or not? (A good analogy is a line of individuals - each one is within an inch in height of both neighbours (== can interbreed). When you form the line into a circle the two former end members are two feet apart in height (== can't interbreed)).
Then you have just the sheer practical difficulty of getting to places where there might be life - Challenger Deep? The seabed under Challenger deep? Oil bearing shale 3 miles down? We know (from our sole visit to Challenger Deep) that there is some sort of life down there, but have no clue as to what species.
A worthwhile undertaking, but doomed from the start - we can't, currently, get definite about giant squid, nevermind microscopic sea creatures.
Re:Impossible Target (Score:4, Informative)
One way taxonomists (in zoology at least) deal with this is by lumping the species into a container known as a "superspecies". Another way that taxonomists deal with the problem is to downgrade the species into subspecies lumped into a single species.
There's no hard and fast rule to follow here, if there were taxonomists would have nothing to argue about.
The gull situation you refer to is particularly complex.
Why is the situation so messy? Evolution. These closely-related species are largely isolated reproductively and have evolved recognizable differences, though there's free hybridization where they meet. In some cases (Western X Glaucous-winged in the Seattle, Washington area, for instance) hybridization is so widespread that at some point I'd expect them to be "lumped" into a single species.
Humans have a role here as gulls show up in large numbers in places where they may not have in the past (think about all those gulls you see around inland landfills). We may play a role in reducing the degree of reproductive isolation of some of these closely-related gulls and may impact their evolution, in other words.
Re:Impossible Target (Score:2)
Thanks - it was starting to annoy me because I couldn't find it. If would have meant a trip to the loft (and I really don't want to do that).
Re:Impossible Target (Score:2)
I believe there have been some recent PCR-based surveys for DNA present in sea water that suggest that a whole bunch of microbes in perfectly accessible habitats have so far managed to slip under our taxonomic radar.
Ligers (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really. Ever hear of a liger [sierrasafarizoo.com]?
It's a cross between a lion and a tiger. Two distinctly unique species can interbreed.
Horse + burro = jackass.
Severum (Heros Severus) + Red Devil (Amphilophus Labiatum) = Blood Parrot Fish.
There are several other examples of different species interbreeding.
Most commonly this happens with humans.
Caucasians, Mongoloids and Negroids [dundee.ac.uk] interbreed more prolifically than any other group of species.
I know it isn't politically correct to say such things, but that's one of the main reasons I love science. It has no room nor desire for political correctness.
And before you oversensitive liberals MOD me into oblivion, know this: I'M BLACK
Knunov
Re:Ligers (Score:2)
Yes - they are sterile. I could have given a more complete definition of species but the point is that (which seems to have passed you by completely) is that any definition can be answered with "Not really".
Let's try
1) Species are organisms that can interbreed with each other.
Not really - what about Ligers.
2) Species are organisms that interbreed with each other and produce viable offspring.
No really - what about the gulls mentioned above - they can interbreed but don't.
3) Species are organisms that can be made to interbreed with each other.
Not really - by painting the gulls, sure, you can persuade them to interbreed. But there are similar examples with e.g. salamanders where we can't persuare them to interbreed, even though it looks like they should be able to.
You can attack the definition from the bottom (genes) instead of phenotypes:
4) Two animals are the same species if (in the wild) there is a significant gene flow between their two gene-pools.
The trouble with this is that an animals gene-pool is defined in terms of its species. And, once that is sorted out, we can then talk anout significant. So chalk up another not really.
I'll ignore the bit where you make a horse's arse of yourself about human speciation - others have dealt with it.
I know it isn't politically correct to say such things, but that's one of the main reasons I love science. It has no room nor desire for political correctness.
But this is a gem. Science is objective to a degree, but it is also a social structure. In the social structure policital correctness is a rife as anywhere else. Take, for example, physics. A hard science - as objective as it comes. Right? Now explain why Carlo Rubbia won a Nobel prize.
To save you the time, Carlo Rubbia was the administrator of the CERN project that discovered the W and Z particles - his scientific contribution was smaller that the majority of other scientists involved. Now, this was a worthy project and probably deserved the prize. There were, however, about 400 people in the teams and, traditionally, the prize goes to =3 people. So they gave it to the administrator - it was, politically, the correct thing to do.
Re:Ligers (Score:2, Troll)
There are lizards that are virtually identical, interior and exterior, yet they are classified as different species.
You seriously look as Black, White and Asian people and see the same thing?
Bullshit. Unmitigated bullshit.
You have the eyes of a sociologist, not a scientist.
I'm not saying this should matter, but we should acknowledge the fact that people are different. It should immediately be followed with the acknowledgement that all that matters is behavior.
I'd rather hang out with a bunch of kind, intelligent, White folks than a gang of my 8-Ball drinkin', crack smokin', home invading Black 'bruthas'.
Knunov
entombed under ice (Score:2, Funny)
Re:entombed under ice (Score:2)
Genetic Blueprints (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on the meaning of "species" (Score:5, Insightful)
The current usage of the term can denote two groups of genetically identical (well, allowing for normal variation) animals but that do not share overlapping habitat ranges as separate species. Given the opportunity, they could interbreed and produce fertile offspring (the "classic" distinction of a species -- which fails utterly for things that reproduce asexually and for morphologically distinct animals -- like lions and tigers -- that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but generally don't).
Thus you get ecofreaks complaining about the imminent extinction of the left-handed mottled weed rat because the two fields where they live are about to be paved over, when in reality that critter is genetically identical to the right-footed fuzz-backed bush mouse and the big-eared worm-tailed ground squirrel that just happen to live in different areas and were originally described by different biologists.
So, what's their definition of "species"?
Re:Depends on the meaning of "species" (Score:2)
"Not to interject too much philosophy...
Re:Depends on the meaning of "species" (Score:2)
Also
I bet you didn't know that, did you?
This aspect of the Act is marvelously well-designed considering the mangling process bills go through as they wend their way through House and Senate.
The reason why it is marvelously well-designed is because it is a result of specific recognition that taxonomy is an imprecise science.
If only species were protected by the Act we'd be seeing taxonomists being sued over "lumping" and "splitting" decisions.
As it stands now, minor shuffling by taxonomists doesn't cause a previously protected population to suddenly lose protection due to "lumping", or a previously unprotected population to suddenly get vaulted to protected status due to "splitting" at the species level.
So taxonomists can go about their work quietly and privately largely without interference. They only have to worry about angering birders who gain or lose entries on their "life lists" when they shuffle things around!
Re:Depends on the meaning of "species" (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, not only is there confusion at the species level, there's confusion at the genus level too...
A kingsnake (genus Lampropeltis) can interbreed with a cornsnake (genus Elaphe) and produce fertile offspring (called jungle corns).
If the line is blurred even at the genus level for known and common animals, then how can people expect to classify things at the species level for unknown or rare animals?
Re:Depends on the meaning of "species" (Score:2)
The thing is, even genetically "identical" individuals can have very different morphology and behaviour, depending on what genes get expressed (obvious examples: different breeds of dog; less obvious: lions and tigers, which can produce fertile offspring but look different and prefer different habitats (their ranges used to overlap). Eventually, of course, different habitats will lead to enough accumulated genetic difference that interbreeding is no longer possible. But where do you draw the species line? It's worse when you're looking at fossils -- all you have to go on is morphology. Would a fossil chihuahua and a fossil St. Bernard (to use someone else's example) be considered the same species?
(And as for "environmental activists" -- hey, housing developers are environmental activists too, they just prefer environments more suited to humans than to some random critter.
Re:species overcount in genus canis (Score:2)
As a side note, 30 years ago I saw the entire Biology department of a small college clustered around a dissecting table, arguing about whether the critter on the table was a coyote hundreds of miles out of its known range, or just a mongrel dog. Alive, the behavior is quite distinct, but this animal had been shot by a nervous farmer. This was a few years before DNA, and apparently no one knew of a definite morphological difference...
Some info from Blue Planet(the Discovery special) (Score:2, Interesting)
11006 ant species as of 2/28/2002, & counting. (Score:4, Informative)
Brief summary: "This is the latest figure reported at the American Museum of Natural History Social
Insects Website ("AntBase"), up by almost 500 since the last update. It has been estimated that another 20,000 remain to be described and named." --Dr. Ant
Wired News, CNN, and Netscape's News mentioned this AntBase.org Web site yesterday as well.
Re:11006 ant species as of 2/28/2002, & counti (Score:2)
The DOJ has said that 2/3 of these were against the Microsoft Settlement, but that only 47 of those species were deemed "significant".
Re:11006 ant species as of 2/28/2002, & counti (Score:2)
They even have a new logo!
speculations (Score:2)
If we ever get off the rock, it will be interesting to see if the forms of life out there all use the same coding in dna, etc. or are using other forms.
In a similar vien, all, if not most of the computer languages out their are based in some way on English, etc. I wonder which progamming would look like if it was all based on japanese or chinese. how much would be similar, and how much would be profoundly different? It is not all mathematics, after all.
Not Like Chemistry (Score:3, Insightful)
--avandesande [slashdot.org]
Chemistry analogy is flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not a good analogy. Chemistry, like math or physics, is an exact science where elements are used as "building blocks" for other elements and compounds. Taxonomy is an inexact science, and the fact that a rare Jamaican fruit fly doesn't have a name yet will not affect other areas of science.
More information is always better, but suggesting that this lack of information somehow cripples biologists is sensationalism.
10 million to more than 100 million... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:10 million to more than 100 million... (Score:2)
Or at least come up with a single number that sounds more authoritative like Spock would.
"Hmm my two guess are 10 million and 100 million"
"Captain, there are 55 million unique species on that planet."
A simple suggestion (Score:2)
And at the rate we're going, the number of species on the planet will have dwindled to around 3 million or so by then. This will make the job much easier.
Species. (Score:2)
Insect evolution rates are problematic (Score:5, Interesting)
In order to understand why these estimates are so large, you have to realize the incredible biodiversity of the plan and insect kingdoms. Plants make up to 22 percent [nytimes.com] of the total number of species, and insects pretty much account for the rest [nytimes.com]. Mammals take up considerably less than 1% of that total.
Many of these species have such high evolutionary rates that they can evolve very quickly and often fill extremely specialized roles in a niche environment. Given this high rate of evolution, the mind-bogelling estimates of the total number, and the intrusionary nature of detection techniques, isn't this goal a little too unrealistic? It would seem to me that by the time you finally have catalogued them 'all,' a good percentage will have become extinct and whole bunch of new players will have emerged. In addition, verifying the continued existance of these species whould be an enourmous job.
Re:Insect evolution rates are problematic (Score:2)
Antbase.org is similar, but only with ant species (Score:2)
Brief description from CNN article: "Whether you're looking for fire ants, carpenter ants or some tetramorium flavithorax, the first complete database of the world's 11,000 known ant species can help you out. Scientists say antbase.org is a unique resource for scholars, ecologists or anyone interested in myrmecology -- the scientific study of ants."
indexing the database? (Score:2)
how would this database be indexed if someone did find what they think is a new species? would they enter keywords, which are highly subjective?
someone mentioned a DNA snapshot, a gel image. that would be easier to index b/c it represents in GUID (global unique id...
perhaps in the process of compiling this database, the authors will inadvertently upset the taxonomy applecart.
either way, this should be fairly exciting, but i don't want to look forward to being 55 years old and finally have the database on line! (it's hard enough waiting for warcraftIII)
Re:indexing the database? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice analogy (Score:2)
That's a bit of a stretch I think.
How many of these species are "leaf nodes" on the evolutionary tree, with only minute differences between the specific species of that family/genus? Our progress in biology isn't *that* severely hampered by not having catalogued all two hundred thousand dung beetle species, each of which differ only in color and antenna length.
IAAT. Pipe dream: Fund the Grass roots (Score:5, Interesting)
In insect taxonomy if you are a highly trained (world class) you can describe around 50 species PER YEAR (at least doing an adequate job). The (small) family I work in has over 2000 undescribed species. There are fewer than 8 experts in the world on this group, only 2-4 are actually producing names actively, and these at rate of much fewer than 50/year. This is a relatively small family of Insects, there are many many larger ones with many many more undescribed species. You do the math.
The biggest problems is finding funding to do this work. Though taxonomists are invaluable to almost all biological studies (if you can't name your study organisms correctly you can't repeat the science) they are among the least well funded. Those that are funded are primarily big mega projects (like this one) that don't understand the nuts and bolt (i.e. code for computer buffs)...they are the administrators that the BOFH hates. So grandiose plans are contrived with know research into how one actually goes about training or naming the species involved. I've seen this happen several times (in insects there are thousands of trapped insects waiting to be sorted and dished out to experts but there is no funding to train taxonomist to be able to do identifications at even rough levels (family/genus) that would allow managable units of specimens to be passed along to "alpha" taxonomists (those that name species.
As for the molecular folks who say taxonomy is passay.. this is a joke. Before they (moleculoids) can even begin to sequence they have to have some level of taxonomic background in place in order to even select the individuals they will sequence.
If you know anything about taxonomy you know that a major problem is dealing with the nomenclature (how are species given names). You basically have to reference everything that is done in the past to ensure that your not naming a species that is already named. Just figuring out what has been done in the past is very problematic. There is very little funding available to deal with these problems. There is also very little infrastrcutre available to deal with these (there are more and more databases avaialable...and this is good).
THERE IS NO GLOBAL CLEARING HOUSE FOR SPECIES NAMES. Nobody has the time or resources to even complile a complete list of species that have already been named, let alone those to be named!!!
The long and short of this rant...you $$$ folks give money to those doing the grunt work...the actuall taxonomists, not the databases/web sites etc. Give it to the amature collector who knows what they are doing.
Re:IAAT. Pipe dream: Fund the Grass roots (Score:2)
Wow; I am *so glad* you responded to this thread, and I do also hope you respond to these questions. :-)
I would really like to do the math, but I am worried that most of the estimates tossed around for the total number of species on the planet are, um, likely to be wrong. (There, I said it.)
So, for starters, and since you are a trained taxonomist, what do you think is the fair ballpark number of species on the planet?
OK, so I know that question is unfair. Somewhat more fair is: what is the current ratio of described to undescribed species in the family of insects you specialize in? Has that ratio changed in any predictable way? By that, I mean this: does every new collecting expedition that goes out into a fresh area come up with just about as many new possible species in your family as the old ones did? More? Fewer? What I'm looking for is the ability to make a statement like "If the number of undescribed species follows the same discovery curve as [your insect family here], then there are X species still to be discovered.
That's the kind of statement I can really deal with.
Species come and go, unlike the elements (Score:2)
Big Foot (Score:2)
Slashdothropdis Lathargicus (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdothropdis Lathargicus
Large smelly mammal with unusual sense of humor, total lack of social skills, and incapable of proper spelling and grammar. Good with tools. Scavenger instincs. Enjoys free beer.
Bigfoot still not classified (Score:2)
I also hope that scientists come to my apartment and identify the millions of species that must be growing in my roommate's room. It hasn't been disturbed by mop, vaccuum, cleaning rag or other species harmful cleansers in at least 3 years. They are sure to find a good percentage of that unknown percentage of species.
Hacker should be on the top of the list (Score:2)
"Every Species on Earth", except the prokaryotes (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose this is only normal, as there are hundreds of species of bacteria in our gut alone, to say nothing of what's on and inside any other creature. And even though we're discovering microbes in places we never thought they'd be (deep in the earth at giga-Pascal pressures, deep in ice, at sulfur vents in the ocean, etc), we can only culture on a plate or in growth media less than 0.5% of what we see!
So "Every Species"? Hardly. Just the cute and cuddly ones that look good on the cover of National Geographic. And maybe a few slimy ones to gross out the kids.
Niles
Lotsa Bugs, but also lotsa fungi and such (Score:2)
The All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory of the Smokies! [utk.edu]
Not just Taxanomy (Score:2)
However... (Score:2, Insightful)
Species classification (Score:2)
How does everyone else feel about the possible classification of humanity into separate species distinctions? I, personally, am against it, but are there any other arguments, for or against?
More important than you might think. (Score:2, Funny)
I expect there to be at least 35 million new species of "Hello World!" that have yet to be discovered.
~D
sounds like a job for The Count (Score:2)
Two species, a-hah-ha-ha!
Three, three species!
Re:all of the elements ? (Score:2)
Re:all of the elements ? (Score:2)
Yes, there may be more heavy, stable elements. There are certainly more heavy, unstable ones (so they only generally exist for a very short period of time. VERY short)
Re:all of the elements ? (Score:2)
This is all from something I read on the Internet some time ago, so it must be true.
Re:trying to start my own (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, me too! I'm starting an Excel spreadsheet that will list every species on Earth. I'll pass it around to my friends and let them add the ones I missed. We should beat the 25 year estimate in that silly article.
Later on if it turns out to be too big a job for Excel I may "super-size" it to Access!
That ought to be able to handle simultaneous access from hundreds of thousands of researchers on a database of approximately 100 Million records, each recording containing research notes and DNA samples among other things.
Good luck, Municipia, I'll race you to the end!
Re:Taxonomy isn't really very useful. (Score:3, Interesting)
If taxonomy was just a classification scheme, like the Dewy Decimal System, you'd have a point. But good taxonomy is more than that -- it is a method for uncovering the evolutionary relationships between organisms and that is quite useful -- among other things, it allows virologists to know what virus strains would make good vaccines. And molecular biology has been a part of taxonomy ever since 1965 when Zuckerkandl and Pauling (yes, the two-time Nobelist Pauling) published the landmark paper "Molecules as Documents of Evolutionary History". Taxonomy of microbes and viruses is almost entirely molecular based today.
Re:Taxonomy isn't really very useful. (Score:2)
Re:Taxonomy isn't really very useful. (Score:2)
not to mention sometimes polluted with DNA from other sources.
Man, a molecular biologist standing up for taxonomy! Good for you!