[Taxacom] How far are we to completing a world, genus/specieslisting for animals

[Stephen Thorpe]

Hi Arthur,

My thought was just that if the range is n-3n (just about) for such a small 
phylum, then what must it be for the megadiverse groups?? I still don't think 
that my randomly selected Onychophora is particularly problematic in any 
relevant way. The interpretation of your data here is a bit unclear. You say 
'if you use the "World Described Accepted" the figure is 165', but the 'World 
Described Accepted Minimum' is 70, and the 'World Described Accepted Maximum' is 
200, so I am at a loss to know how to reconcile these figures - is 165 some sort 
of average?

Another issue is Hymenoptera, where you quote a single figure of 115 000, with 
Hymenoptera Online Database as the source. You don't seem to mention that this 
source is neither complete, nor does it claim to be. In fact, that figure would 
appear to have been quoted out of context from the very first sentence on the 
main page (http://hol.osu.edu/), where it says 'The order Hymenoptera contains 
some 115,000 species'. The word 'some' indicates to me that this is meant to be 
an approximate figure, quite how approximate I don't know, but you quote it in a 
way that looks exact!

Perhaps my criticisms here are a bit too harsh, but I think it is very easy to 
give people a wrong impression of apparent precision with this sort of stuff. I 
actually think that you did a very good job indeed overall with all this, but it 
is no substitute for actually getting all the names set out in a sensible way 
and then counting them up ... I'm sure you would agree? That is my main point.

Cheers,

Stephen




________________________________
From: Arthur Chapman <taxacom3 at achapman.org>
To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wed, 4 August, 2010 12:17:49 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] How far are we to completing a world, genus/specieslisting 
for animals

Stephen, as mentioned by others Onychyphora is not a good example

Also the figure of 70-200 are from a range of published references - if 
you use the "World Described Accepted" the figure is 165, which has been 
arrived at following examination of the sub groups Peripatidae (75) and 
Peripatopsidae (90).  I have quoted the published figures which give a 
range, but have attempted to look at the most reliable figures from sub 
groups where available, and in this case from Reid's publication in the 
Australian Faunal Directory.  If you have more reliable figures, then 
please let me know and perhaps we can add those in future editions.

Where ever possible, I have published the range of estimates to give 
some idea of the lack of knowledge in some groups, but have attempted to 
come up with a final estimate based on best available information.

It is hoped that this publication can later be made a living document, 
whereby it can be continually updated as new information comes 
available, and allow for Wiki-like discussions where there may be 
disagreements.

Your second comment, "many of Chapman's sources are from Joel Hallan's 
Biology Catalogue!! " - is not true - very few of the final estimates 
are based on Joel's figures, although I quote his figures wherever 
available, as I do with any other published numbers.  Where his do 
appear to be reliable, and in the absence of contrary evidence, I have 
used his figures and do not apologise for doing that.

regards

Arthur

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Thorpe<stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] How far are we to completing a world
    genus/specieslisting for animals
To:Tony.Rees at csiro.au,releech at telusplanet.net,
    joelhallan at hotmail.com,    taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:<915123.78541.qm at web114220.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

OK, a quick look at a random small phylum (Onychophora,
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/other/species-numbers/2009/04-02-groups-invertebrates.html#onychophora)

  in Chapman, reveals a 70-200 World Described/
Accepted species. This is an alarmingly wide range for such a small phylum!

In an amusingly circular turn of argument, many of Chapman's sources are from
Joel Hallan's Biology Catalogue!!



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here