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

Tue Aug 3 21:28:01 CDT 2010

yeah, I don't think we really disagree about anything much at all really, just 
perhaps some very general issues:

>In the mean time, we need some sort of estimate to allow organisations to plan 
>the task ahead and to know where to put resources

hmmm ... I think we need to be careful here for two related reasons:

(1) organisational planning involves managers who are typically very busy and so 
need figures to be self-evident to interpret, rather than having to wade through 
the "fine print"

(2) the organisational planning involved is fairly insensitive to the exact 
numbers, so it is probably best to keep the figures as approximate and general 
as possible for this purpose (order of magnitude stuff), and make this self 
evidently so. Otherwise there is a danger of people reading too much into the 
numbers

Also the "when will it happen" response to a more definitive list is easy to 
answer: never, unless we aget cracking! 

There is a danger that these overall estimates of biodiversity may actually 
become surrogates for the definitive list and thereby take resources away from 
the latter ...

BTW, I think it is a very good idea to make the figures dynamically updateable

Stephen

________________________________
From: Arthur Chapman <taxacom3 at achapman.org>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Cc: Arthur Chapman <taxacom3 at achapman.org>; TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wed, 4 August, 2010 2:09:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] How far are we to completing a world, 
genus/specieslisting for animals

Sure, Stephen.

If you look at the publication, and the text, it explains where the Minimum and 
Maximum come from and how the "World Described Accepted" was determined - in 
that case from Reid in the ABRS Publication.  Many times I made judgement 
decisions and I guess I will live and die by those.

I have tried to explain what the minimum figure I have found is, and what is the 
Maximum.  This publication is not meant to be a full study, but is a current 
summary of available (mostly published but some pers. comm.) information.  Sure 
- we can wait until we have a full lists of definitive names - but how long will 
that be?  In the mean time, we need some sort of estimate to allow organisations 
to plan the task ahead and to know where to put resources.

With respect to the Hymenoptera - yes - all are approximate and in this case is 
obviously an estimate as indicated by the rounding.  I could have added an "~" 
in front of virtually every number but advantage would that have given -  I 
think that is explained in the introduction.  Numbers for Insects have varied 
vastly, and that is why, in this edition, I have gone down to the Order level, 
and sought figures where available at that level. The previous edition did not 
do this for insects because the data was not available at the time. As a result, 
I think we have arrived at a much better figure and with a smaller error range.  
But only time will tell, and that is why I hope we can develop this as a living 
document so that we can continually update the figures. 

I hope, that over time, our graph will approach an asymptote as our figures 
become more accurate - in the mean time - I hope the publication proves to be of 
value.  One spin-off of the publication of this document is that many people are 
looking more closely at the numbers and as a result we have had a number of 
publications refining the numbers.

regards

Arthur

On 4/08/2010 11:49 AM, Stephen Thorpe wrote: 
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
>
> 