[Taxacom] see no weevil, hear no weevil, speak no weevil ...

[Stephen Thorpe]

In my opinion, Costello et al. ought to have claimed only that all existing estimates of global biodiversity are unreliable, without adding another unreliable estimate to the pot, particularly since?their new low estimate could be used and quoted by those who would chop down all the rainforests (i.e., "associate professor at respected university says that there aren't thousands of species going extinct before they?can be discovered?or documented")?. We should surely take the cautious approach and admit that we just don't know the extent of global biodiversity. I'm not even going to comment any further on the crazy notion that we could document all species within 100 years!
?
Surely, the obvious problem with using existing databases for biodiversity estimates is that the data is full of various biases, due in part to the fact that taxonomy has not been in proportion to greatest need, but has progressed very much by subjective selection of convenient groups and localities. Furthermore, I know for fact, for example, just how bad the fit with reality is between the NZ fauna on paper and both in the field and even in collections. It must be far worse for the megadiverse tropical regions...
?
Stephen

From: James Whitfield <jwhitfie at life.illinois.edu>
To: Roderic Page <r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk>
Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2011 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] see no weevil, hear no weevil, speak no weevil ...

Yes.? Actually it seems all of the estimates from existing databases (as
opposed to field studies using extrapolatory methods) appear to
underestimate overall richness (sometimes severely).

As Rod says, why? the answers may provide some insights into how some
groups are systematically undersampled, others are clearly underdescribed
relative to others based on what we now know, etc.? A way forward might be
then clear. Of course, it could be that one or the other of these recent
studies is actually fairly accurate, in which case we have to re-think
other things! I am betting not, however.

Jim




> Isn't it interesting that two papers have appeared recently that both
> estimate the number of species, both use essentially the same data (e.g.,
> Catalogue of Life and WoRMS), and yet they arrive at very different
> answers?
>
> The two papers are listed here:
> http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-many-species-are-there-and-why-do.html
>
> Rather than dismiss one or other (or both) of the studies, surely the
> question is how come the results are so different?
>
> Regards
>
> Rod
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2011, at 04:41, Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>
>> this is surely worth a read:
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5707449/Globes-species-may-number-just-two-million
>>
>> throwing numbers around like baked beans in a kindergarten ...
>>
>> I very much doubt that 100 years from now, even all the species which
>> live on the Tamaki Campus here will have been described and documented!
>> The rate of description of mites, nematodes, micro-Hymenoptera,
>> micro-fungi, etc. is very low, but the actual diversity is high ...
>>
>> In the tropical rainforests, who can even guess how many species are
>> present??
>>
>> Stephen
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Roderic Page
> Professor of Taxonomy
> Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine
> College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
> Graham Kerr Building
> University of Glasgow
> Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
>
> Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 141 330 4778
> Fax: +44 141 330 2792
> AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id12517192
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
> Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom? your search terms here
>


-- 
James B. Whitfield
Department of Entomology
320 Morrill Hall
505 S. Goodwin Avenue
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
http://www.life.illinois.edu/whitfield


_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

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