Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what we don't know about the world

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • what we don't know about the world

    i read this a little while ago and found it fairly interesting, so i thought i'd post it here

    from the bbc


    What we don't know about the world

    By Jonathan Duffy
    BBC News Magazine

    While no corner of earth remains uncharted, there are still millions of species that have yet to be discovered and documented. The quest to complete a comprehensive directory of all life on earth goes on.

    It's a good job monkeys don't understand us, else you'd fear for the newly discovered Callicebus aureipalatii.

    The creature is one of about 30 varieties of titi monkey which can be found in the dense tropical rainforests of South America. There's Callicebus brunneus (Brown titi), Callicebus personatus (Masked titi), Callicebus moloch (Dusky titi) and then there's the new arrival, Callicebus aureipalatii - Golden Palace titi.

    This latest species had the dubious fate of being discovered in an era of strident global capitalism - hence its name, the result of a charity auction eventually won by the online gambling emporium GoldenPalace.com.

    Novelty names aside, though, it's surprising that on a planet which has been so comprehensively researched, circumnavigated and trampled over there are still new sorts of primate which have evaded human detection.

    Elsewhere, recently, there have been reports of:

    a new species of fox in Indonesia;

    a hitherto unknown "vampire" fish in the Amazon;

    and a long-lost ivory-billed woodpecker in the US.

    This week, Kew Gardens announced plans to recolonise the globe with the Woolemi pine a tree that was thought to have died out at least two million years ago, before it was discovered by accident in 1994 in Australia.
    While Mother Nature wrestles with the effects of industrialisation, prompting fears about extinction rates, there are still huge gaps in our knowledge about the natural world that surrounds us.

    In fact, even by conservative estimates, there are more living species on the planet that haven't been identified and documented than have.

    Stock-take

    For 250 years taxonomists - biologists who specialise in identifying and classifying life - have been busy conducting a sort of stock-take of the world's seemingly countless species.

    The current tally, from the tiniest plankton to the mighty blue whale hovers around the 1.75 million mark.

    But even that's just an estimate. The Catalogue of Life programme, a UK-US partnership, is consolidating all the various specie databases around the world, with the aim of producing a single, definitive directory of life.

    The task should be completed by 2011, when the catalogue will then begin to absorb all subsequent discoveries - of which there are many thousands every year.

    In the animal kingdom alone there are 15,000 to 20,000 new species identified annually. But barring the odd South American monkey, few of these have the sort of mass appeal that would prompt an online bidding war for the right to name them.

    "Over the past 10 to 15 years there have been a host of surprises as we explore previously inaccessible habitats," says Professor Frank Bisby, of Species 2000, a partner in the Catalogue of Life project.

    "High in the atmosphere, deep in the soil, in the thermal vents on the ocean floor and within animals themselves, there are new species to be found."

    He notes a recent discovery of 200 new species of yeast found living in the guts of beetles.

    The tropics are widely acknowledged as fertile ground for all forms of life, but only now are biologists starting to seriously explore rainforests at canopy (treetop) level, and finding new varieties of wildlife.

    Oceans too are a rich seam of undocumented life - the Census of Marine life uncovered 500 new species of fish in the first three years of this decade. It estimates there could be 10 times more waiting to be logged.

    Pioneering spirit

    By comparison, the plant world is more familiar. About 75% of the world's plants have been chronicled, says Simon Owens of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew, and about 2,000 new species are discovered every year.

    New Guinea, the world's second biggest island, is viewed with the sort of pioneering spirit that botanists once had for Madagascar. There's also a lot of interest in the jungles of central Africa, although civil wars have hampered further exploration.

    Political changes in the old communist world have helped clear a path for Kew's army of freelance researchers, says Mr Owens, who notes some beautiful new discoveries of slipper orchids - which have a pouch rather than a lip - in remote parts of China.

    While such discoveries may delight the human eye, the overall challenge of charting the undiscovered world stretches way into the future. One study estimates that at the past rate it will take another 1,500 to 15,000 years to complete the global inventory of life.

    But the pace is stepping up, says Dr Andrew Polaszek of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, thanks to the internet, rapid exchange of high quality images and DNA sequencing - which is faster than the traditional technique for documenting species.

    Barriers

    All of which begs one last question - why bother? After all, these unknown species have existed for thousands, sometimes millions of years without occupying a line in a notebook.

    In a globalised world, says Dr Polaszek, nothing can cross international barriers without a name and official documentation. Plants and animals have numerous benefits, such as helping us conquer diseases. If we don't know something exists, we won't know when it's on the verge of extinction.

    And in a globalised world, species can quickly thrive in areas where there are no natural predators, killing indigenous life. The discovery of a species of parasitic wasp (each no more than 1mm in length) is promising to bring under control a plant killing white fly on the Canary Islands, says Dr Polaszek.

    "We're almost there," says Dr Polaszek. "The wasp has been identified, and shipped over. It's in quarantine and about to be released any day now."
    "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

    "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

  • #2
    It's almost embarassing how many projects there are trying to catalogue all the species on Earth. It's probably quite a clever move for those concerned though, since rather than then putting themselves out of a job, they get to spend the next 30 years arguing about whose comprehensive list is correct.
    Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
    "I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

    Comment


    • #3
      I think they go alittle over bored with the numbers there. I mean that monkey they were talking about, they listed several different species, yet the only thing that I could tell that made them different from each other was appeareance. Do we classify different humans based on their appeareance? No. We are all just Homo Sapiens, not Homo Sapian Caucation or Homo Sapian Orientalius or Homo Sapien Africus.
      Founder of The Glory of War, CHAMPIONS OF APOLYTON!!!
      1992-Perot , 1996-Perot , 2000-Bush , 2004-Bush :|, 2008-Obama :|, 2012-Obama , 2016-Clinton , 2020-Biden

      Comment


      • #4
        I thought the definition of species is that if they cannot produce viable offspring, then they are different species.
        “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

        ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

        Comment


        • #5
          That is the usual definition; the other slightly broader one is that if individuals do not produce viable offspring [in the wild], then they are of different species. It is quite tricky. Sometimes humanity's endless need to partition continuous data into discrete little parcels is very frustrating.

          I think they go a little over board with the numbers there. I mean that monkey they were talking about, they listed several different species, yet the only thing that I could tell that made them different from each other was appeareance.
          With all due respect, I imagine that the biologists involved have studied the morphology, genetics and breeding habits of those monkeys in sufficient detail as to make an informed decision as to their taxonomic status.
          Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
          "I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

          Comment


          • #6
            a horse and a mule can produce offspring (donkeys), of course those offspring are sterile. But I'm sure they are 2 separate species.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dissident
              a horse and a mule can produce offspring (donkeys), of course those offspring are sterile. But I'm sure they are 2 separate species.
              You got it backwards. A horse and donkey produce a mule.
              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

              Comment


              • #8
                that's what I said

                edit: I guess not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  From what I understood, different species under same genus can produce offsprings but those will be sterile.

                  But again few weeks ago in Hawai'i, a wholpin (whale-dolphin) produced an offspring.
                  Who is Barinthus?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    and it's funny most people say neanderthals and homo sapiens couldn't produce offpsring, but I bet they could. Again, the offspring were probably sterile.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      and it's funny most people say neanderthals and homo sapiens couldn't produce offpsring, but I bet they could. Again, the offspring were probably sterile.
                      For the most part, they never interacted. Homo sapiens stayed in Africa (Not including nearly went extinct ) and had no contact with Homo neanderthalis.

                      Classification of species are quite tricky, as it is really completely artifical.

                      I think they go alittle over bored with the numbers there. I mean that monkey they were talking about, they listed several different species, yet the only thing that I could tell that made them different from each other was appeareance. Do we classify different humans based on their appeareance? No. We are all just Homo Sapiens, not Homo Sapian Caucation or Homo Sapian Orientalius or Homo Sapien Africus.
                      There's a reason for this, however; the genetic diversity of humans is extremely low. Most other species/genuses of the world have genetic diversity to merit subspecies and species, but not humans. We havn't had enoguh time to fully diversify yet (And with our international intermingling now, probably won't diverge at all.) Therefore, one human race, even though many other mammals such as cats and dogs can have different subspecies and whatnot.
                      "Compromises are not always good things. If one guy wants to drill a five-inch hole in the bottom of your life boat, and the other person doesn't, a compromise of a two-inch hole is still stupid." - chegitz guevara
                      "Bill3000: The United Demesos? Boy, I was young and stupid back then.
                      Jasonian22: Bill, you are STILL young and stupid."

                      "is it normal to imaginne dartrh vader and myself in a tjhreee way with some hot chick? i'ts always been my fantasy" - Dis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Barinthus
                        From what I understood, different species under same genus can produce offsprings but those will be sterile.

                        But again few weeks ago in Hawai'i, a wholpin (whale-dolphin) produced an offspring.
                        IIRC, one of the two is actually misnamed, and both are really whales, or dolphins.

                        Edit: Yes, the "whale" was actually a false killer whale, which is just a large Oceanic dolphin.
                        Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test. Thank you for helping us help you help us all!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is a funny coincidence, just today it's being reported in Jyllands-Posten (in Danish) that an unknown family of mammals, i.e. not just a new species, has been discovered in Laos. The experts say it may well be the last family of mammals to be discovered ever.

                          The animal is a 30 cm-long rodent which lives in forested areas and limestone formations. Its meat is often sold for human consumption at markets in Laos, and it was at such a market that biologists first saw the animal and discovered that it belonged to a hitherto unknown group of mammals. The locals call it Kha-nyou, and its taxonomical name will be Laonastes Senigmamus.

                          It says that the discovery has just been published in the periodical "Systematics and Biodiversity", and that studies of its DNA and cranium characteristics show that the species developed along its own path compared to other rodents millions of years ago.

                          They say that the last time a new group or family of mammals was discovered is assumed to be in the 1970's when a new group of bats was identified in Thailand.

                          Here's an image of what it looks like:
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            it looks like a rat to me
                            Bunnies!
                            Welcome to the DBTSverse!
                            God, Allah, boedha, siva, the stars, tealeaves and the palm of you hand. If you are so desperately looking for something to believe in GO FIND A MIRROR
                            'Space05us is just a stupid nice guy' - Space05us

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Looks nothing like a rat. That's awesome
                              Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
                              "I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X