New Estimate Suggests 5.5M Species On Earth, Not 30-100M 256
An anonymous reader writes "How many species share our planet? According to a recalculation by an international research team, the number is significantly lower than we thought — only around 5.5 million."
Well yeah, now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:4, Funny)
hey, dude... BP is trying as hard as they can to get the rest of them, too. It's just taking a little longer than first thought. Cut them some slack.
Re: (Score:2)
So, since most people adhere to evolutionary theories - isn't killing off of species by other species part of evolution?
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, sure.
But we can ask the question: Is our wanton destruction of many of the ecosystems on earth a desirable thing?
Quibbling over whether it is properly described as natural or not sort of misses the point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But we can ask the question: Is our wanton destruction of many of the ecosystems on earth a desirable thing?
Interesting. I'd certainly argue it's not. Good point.
Quibbling over whether it is properly described as natural or not sort of misses the point.
Granted. On the other hand, it's not a moral issue, in this case. It's a survival-of-our-race issue, in this case?
My underlying point is that many seem to hold to two opposing ideas, IMO...
1. There is no God, and evolution is how everything got here.
2. It's wrong to destroy species, etc. There's some moral/ethical/inherently-bad thing about it.
To me, there's a disconnect. #1 has some amount of backing (evolutionary theory). #2, combined with #1, s
Re: (Score:2)
Morality and ethics are not dependent on the existence of God. There is considerable philosophical debate on what things are ethical, and what the foundation of ethics is (inherent, social, etc.), but God cannot be reasonably said to be the only backing for ethics.
That said, I am under the understanding that many consider "3. It's not a good idea to destroy species; doing so may have repercussions for us" a reasonable third option.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it's not mere survival we're aiming for.
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. There is no God, and evolution is how everything got here.
2. It's wrong to destroy species, etc. There's some moral/ethical/inherently-bad thing about it.
To me, there's a disconnect. #1 has some amount of backing (evolutionary theory). #2, combined with #1, seems to me to have no backing.
Evolution is not aimed to disprove God, it is a well-tested and refined theory on how life changes over generations. While many, myself included, do not believe in the existence of a deity, it is not a causal relationship with the acceptance of theories in the scientific community. Nor do I feel it necessary to conflict the two. I do have conflict with the teaching of creationism and/or "intelligent design" as science in schools, as they are not theories formed using the scientific method, but that is a different topic.
As for morality/ethics, as TheCycoONE mentions, they are not dependent on a God, so there is no inherent disconnect with your #1 and #2.
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me tell about my side of the story...
I do believe, that nature is intelligently designed
There is a part of the teaching about micro- and macroevolution (evolution inbetween species and from species to species), which I do like as a thought - there is also no hard proof of species converting to other either - but I do believe MacroEv in the long run to be possible, maybe even wanted or happening.
As I have researched back then in historical background, evolution, as many other theories, came out of scientific university background, and was used in media to bash christian beliefs (I think it was english media, a face off between some clergy guy and a professor). From there on, the normal cycle of historical developments, where science changed the view of deists and atheists at the same amount over time (mostly by some sacrifices of christian scientists facing christian clergy), did not take it's usual path. It became something which was a direct attack on God, and was used as such. Same goes for the Big Bang, which in theory still does not proof God not existing. Christians started to defend themselves using non scientific explanations or pseudo science to keep their face in the last century, forgetting, that also christians fought to have a separation, freedom of faith and so on.
It feels like, believers tried to create a chisma between science and religion and now we have to pay for it by being attacked from those we wanted to liberate. Because not all christians did or do support religious viewpoints.
Universities in itself, as also many other aspects of our humanist culture, is something, a Christian would have fought for, especially from the early churches, but I think especially our main figure in the bible would have. Many scientists before this event were strong believers. But nowadays they are silent, silent because their scientific work would not been taken seriously if they admitted they are christians, and sometimes troubled in faith, because fundamentalists question their faith - they are attacked from both worlds.
It is hard to know, who really is at fault, populistic science, or religious fundamentalists, and who fired the first shot - I think it could be the christians on the other side. But one thing is clear: this war is not needed. Universities were not the temples of Atheism, as many christians nowadays see them. Knowledge was a virtue, it could be a calling from God, some books in the bible were written by "scientific" people back in the days of Luke (Genealogy was for example the begin of a historic text) and many Universities were founded by liberal thinking christians.
I do have experience. If I say, I do believe in God, I am regarded as somebody who might not really understand science (well I would never say, I know very much). It's a hard life in universities, and certainly did affect my life in general, in both studies - medicine and computer science. As if my personal belief in a God would not make me somebody who wants to find out what's out there, how things work and so on.
Since I was an atheist for a good period of my life, and did ask myself, how God can exist if evolution is proposed, I do understand, that it is seen as a contrast to the bible, it does trouble people seeking a faith.
Reading first chapter genesis and realising it's completely different aspect on creation as later in the book, seeing that even the timeline matches, and that it is only one chapter of a book afterwards going in a completely different direction, it made me realise, it's just a populistic hategame and talk-a-lot all around the world, like there is racism, and it should not stand in the way to only read, what that book has to say to me - or not. So I did continue. Many questions ahead. Still quite sceptical. Love Gen1,1 though.
I do enjoy the company of atheistic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for the insightful and well thought out post. It is really too bad that religion and science come to blows so often when they should remain unrelated. If computer technology somehow conflicted with the teachings of the Bible, would a fundamentalist denounce the use of them? If somehow evidence was found proving the existence of a deity, would atheists deny it, even if it were peer-reviewed and followed the scientific method? My guess, is that they probably would, and that is human nature at some of i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it would be a part of the whole selection process.
The real problem with the numbers that go extinct is that when some species are removed from existence, the whole ecosystem goes crazy because it's not built to operate at the sudden pace that we're pushing it at. Plus, we're hitting nearly every ecosystem with rapid change at once, which is taking a somewhat delicate system and playing Jenga with it.
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:5, Insightful)
when some species are removed from existence, the whole ecosystem goes crazy because it's not built to operate at the sudden pace that we're pushing it at. Plus, we're hitting nearly every ecosystem with rapid change at once, which is taking a somewhat delicate system and playing Jenga with it.
In other words: Once we hit that bulls-eye, the dominoes will fall like a house of cards; checkmate.
Re: (Score:2)
dominoes will fall like a house of cards; checkmate
Dude, you must be ADD. You play all that at once?
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:5, Funny)
So in order to kill Master Splinter, we must use flame throwers, got it.
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:4, Funny)
In contrast, if you kill them all with fire (which they are very unlikely to be immune to) then none will survive to the next generation so the local population dies completely.
A rat immune to poisons AND fire would be amazing. In a few generations, we could have rats that are poison resistant, fire-resistant, metal-resistant, you name it.
Awesome.
Basically, we'd have a group of cleric-rats.
Re: (Score:2)
if you kill them all with fire (which they are very unlikely to be immune to) then none will survive to the next generation so the local population dies completely.
Or nukes from orbit.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't work. Don't you remember? Rats, cockroaches, and twinkies are nuke-proof.
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast, if you kill them all with fire (which they are very unlikely to be immune to) ...
Yeah, but can you imagine the kind of rat that would be immune to fire?! I say nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth noting that punctuated equilibrium observes that few species actually change significantly over thousands of years. Evolution is driven more by extinctions and new species arising than one species evolving in one direction.
It's unlikely that, say, seagulls worldwide would face the same selective forces, they're not all going to be facing concentrated oil spills, so seagulls worldwide would probably not evolve simultaneously. Some seagulls in louisiana might happen to have traits that will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, since most people adhere to evolutionary theories - isn't killing off of species by other species part of evolution?
Yes, but evolution won't necessarily be kind to us if we do so. Evolution isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if its crosshairs are on you.
Re:Well yeah, now... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite. Stop anthropomorphizing evolution. Evolution does not care if it is the right thing to grow a second head or kill off the only food source. Evolution is a theory used to explain how organisms change with successive generations. That is all. It should not be used to moralize our actions. That is how things like eugenics get proposed. Going by your logic, because many people adhere to astronomy theories, we should not attempt to intercede if we detect a large comet on a collision course with Earth or the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to anthropomorphize, actually. I know it's a theory of a natural process, not any sort of intelligence, will, etc.
And I agre,e it shouldn't be used to moralize actions, and that is how things like eugenics get proposed, and that's exactly what I don't want.
So, the subsequent question - where does the morality part come from?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people don't seem to understand that this reduces in some occasionally quite 'meta' ways. A lot of things a culture may consider objectionable are tolerated precisely because that culture values the conceptual abstract of 'tolerance' more than it actually conside
Re: (Score:2)
If you knew this, why did you pose the question in the first place?
Also, see ElectricTurtle's answer to your question on morality, I don't think I have anything to add to it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stop anthropomorphizing evolution, it hates it when you do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it is a part of evolution, however humans have developed ways and means of changing the environment to our liking. For instance, I live in an apartment, not a cave.
We can decide whether we'd prefer to kill off other species, or live in harmony with them. We can even preferentially keep species alive if we like them enough, even though they'd probably die out without our help.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And beavers build dams in order to change their environment to their liking.
Termites build habitats for themselves with an internal environment to their liking.
Ants, ditto.
Your point was?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know that?
I'm sure you're probably right, or right about most species, but I think the whole system is too chaotic for you to make that point as an absolute truth. Some extinctions have been GREAT for humanity (or at least mammals in general).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Smallpox.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
after we've killed off a bunch of them.
How can you be so calm when this study alone just wiped out an estimated 94.5% of all species on Earth?
Depending on where you start (Score:5, Funny)
Each more delicious than the last!
Hmm... maybe I should have had breakfast this morning...
that will increase when... (Score:2)
BP claims responsibility (Score:4, Funny)
London, England. Today BP Chairman Johan Georing declared responsibilty for the recently discovered mass extinction of species on Planet Earth. "With 10 to 15 million down," Georing said, "we only have four or five million more to go. And just look how well we seem to be doing this month."
No more life on earth in 2160 (Score:2, Interesting)
So they say there are 5.5 million species on earth and the World Resources Institute [berkeley.edu] Says 100 species are going extinct every day!
So, by 2160 every species on earth will be extinct. Sounds good to me, lets eat!
Re: (Score:2)
Because linear extrapolation is always true.
Loser species go first, who cares about these cows [wikipedia.org]?
The toughest honorable species, like roaches will remain well beyond 2160. Hail Darwin!
Re: (Score:2)
What makes it especially retarded in regard to this specific issue is that barring an extra-planetary event, the elimination of life is probably near impossible. If life originated by
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming a constant extinction rate (Score:4, Insightful)
Which obviously could not be the case. This is the same sort of erroneous statistics that lead to creationist "proofs" that the world is only 4,000/6,000/10,000 years old by assuming that the current human population growth rate is exactly the same as it has been throughout history and counting backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on whether we knock out a few very important species or not. kind of like the difference between knocking out a window and knocking out one of the support beams. One has very little impact; the other causes a collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an industry sponsored study (Score:4, Funny)
Something seems fishy.... (Score:4, Insightful)
FTA:
By looking at all of the beetles that live on a single tree species in Papua New Guinea, the researchers were able to extrapolate their numbers to a global scale.
No, they thought they could extrapolate their numbers to a global scale. Luckily, they used only the most rigourous methods...
This type of model is widely used in financial risk assessments, but has rarely been applied to ecology.
Well perhaps not the most rigourous, more likely that type of model has never been applied to reality, but I digress. This smells like bullshit science and shouldn't be leant much credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
***Well perhaps not the most rigourous, more likely that type of model has never been applied to reality, but I digress. This smells like bullshit science and shouldn't be leant much credibility.***
You probably have it right. We take some shaky data from one tree in one place in the tropics using math similar to that that recently crashed the world's financial system (because it handles correlation inappropriately) we come up with a number. I think this can safely be filed next to the "bumblebees can't fl
By what definition of species? (Score:4, Informative)
But what definition of species does this estimate use? It may seem odd, but there really isn't a scientific consensus of how to define a "species". That's not to say there aren't strong opinions out there, but it tends to vary from field to field depending on what questions a particular group of biologists is trying to answer. When you actually dig down and look carefully, there are shades of gray and blurring of lines all over the place (as would be expected for a world that is constantly evolving - there's no clear day on which one species becomes two).
(If you're trying to count species from the point of view of a billionaire with a Pokemon mindset, you're going to be disappointed because there will never have a perfect checklist for you to collect)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always an issue with "species" Why exactly are grey breasted wren and a white breasted wren considered different species when a Chihuahua and a Great Dane considered different species? Yeah, the DNS testing may give you a difference, but back during darwin he didn't have that luxury. And try explaining to a 5 year old why those two wrens are different but those two dogs are the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may seem odd, but there really isn't a scientific consensus of how to define a "species".
How about a political one then? Here in the Pacific Northwest, salmon species are separated by their spawning habitat. Never mind that salmon do make mistakes and swim up the wrong creek (or newly dug irrigation ditch) from time to time, interbreed and create more robust genetically diverse populations. Or forget about hatchery raised fish. Those are a species unto themselves. Even though they were raised from wild stock taken from local streams.
These definitions are necessary to ensure that every populati
Not getting there methods (Score:3, Informative)
Let me see if I understand their methods. If we take some sort of statistical sample with trees common to the deserts in Africa (let's say two Beatles named Ringo and Paul live in all of them), we can also determine the number of species on Earth? What happens if we pick a tree species where no Beatles or any species lives? Hell, what if we start with a desert with no trees or life at all? How about the poles? How many Beatles live in them apple trees?
The statistical likelihood of BS seems very high.
Study excludes microorganisms (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you define species when there's no sexual reproduction?
Source journal may give clue to veracity (Score:2)
I'm not saying the researchers didn't do their homework, but for something of this gravity, I would have expected Science or Nature to pick it up, not American Naturalist. Not that American Naturalist is a bad journal, but its certainly easier to get a paper in there than other journals (even Ecology, if I'm not mistaken). In light of that, I'm a bit skeptical of their claims.
Well, I've been thinking about taxonomy recently. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's largely a matter of convention. Wolves hybridize with coyotes to produce viable offspring ... but the two species are genetically, behaviorally and ecologically distinct (in most places) so it seems reasonable to treat them as different species.
Insect species are often split based on tiny morphological details, even where the two populations hybridize. Other times they are organized into "subspecies", or species within a genus are organized into "subgenera".
What might make more sense is some kind of measure of genetic entropy. That would also count low species diversity, as in cases of species that pass through genetic bottlenecks (e.g. cheetahs), and so which represent a less stable population.
Great, just great. (Score:3, Informative)
How many species share our planet? According to a recalculation by an international research team, the number is significantly lower than we thought - only around 5.5 million...
Cue the science deniers in 3...2...1...
...breathlessly observing that, "Once again, science has proven that it can't be trusted..."
What's in a number? (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to discredit the dangers of biodiversity loss, but I have real trouble assigning any real meaning to the notion of "millions of species", and I don't think that those numbers are doing much to win over eco-skeptics either. The real issue to me seems to be overall genetic diversity and the need to preserve it; how many "species" you pigeonhole that diversity into has very little practical relevance and is probably impossible to do properly anyway.
Re:from the depends-how-you-count dept (Score:4, Funny)
4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3...
Re: (Score:2)
They did this last count *after* the oil spill. gee thanks, BP!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I count 0, 1, 10, 11...
I think a bragr won the nerd bragging contest...
Re:from the depends-how-you-count dept (Score:4, Funny)
I count 0, 1, 11, 10, 110, 111...
My gears don't wear out as fast as yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:from the depends-how-you-count dept (Score:5, Informative)
Re:from the depends-how-you-count dept (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing he has 11 of them!
Re: (Score:3)
I stand corrected
Re:from the depends-how-you-count dept (Score:5, Funny)
There are 10 kinds of people: Those who understand Gray code, those who don't, and those who mistake it for binary.
Re: (Score:2)
I count ...
1
1A
10
11
1AA
1A0
Re: (Score:2)
Decimals, fractions, complex numbers..
Re: (Score:2)
I was responding to "What are all other numbers but a combination of primes?". Of course depending on the meaning of "combination" you could also use prime integers to make numbers in those other systems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's one possible solution to the problem of classifying Ring Species [wikipedia.org]. For the simplest case, where populations (A+B) could be classified as a species, and populations (B+C) could as well, but (A+C) could not, how many species do you have? I could make strong arguments for one, two, two-point-five, and three.
It gets even trickier with longer rings/chains. If (A+B), (B+C), and (C+D) all meet a definition of "species", but (A+D) doesn't (requirement of "ring species"), that still leaves open questions abou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he had missed out 1, his statement would have been incorrect. He never said they were all prime, just that all other numbers were a combination of primes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I count 1,2,4,5... for there is the number I never mention except to explode the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.
Re: (Score:2)
Why obviously? The only definition of a species is that two organisms that cannot mate are, by definition, different species.
Re: (Score:2)
"... very single beetle with a slightly different coloration OBVIOUSLY counts as a new species ..."
Why obviously? The only definition of a species is that two organisms that cannot mate are, by definition, different species.
So by that definition, How many species of mules are out there?
Re: (Score:2)
Mules cannot mate because they are sterile, not because they have incompatible genes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mules most certainly can mate, and occasionally the female versions get pregnant and have foals. The usual fertility issues with horse/donkey mules are because they have an odd number of genes (63) rather than 62 (donkeys) or 64 (horses) which results in difficulties pairing up genetic material. At least that's what Wikipedia tells me. Would Jamie Wailes lie to me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule [wikipedia.org]
Actually... (Score:2)
...despite what you were told in school, the definition of "species" has become considerably fuzzier than "can mate". It is not a cut-and-dried designation at all anymore, which obviously complicates counting the total number of species on the planet.
This source [talkorigins.org] includes discussion on what counts as a species.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be more accurate to say that there are fuzzy cases of speciation .
IN most circumstances 'can it mate' is good enough.
Yes, some plant are asexual, yes genetic material can be transferred between species via virus.
In this count, they didn't count bacteria, and the removes most of the 'fuzzy' area.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Do slashdotters count as a single different species or are each of us a species unto ourselves?
Re:Bzzt! Wrong (Score:5, Funny)
We're like mules, same species, just practically incapable of reproduction.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well... "Two organisms that cannot produce fertile offspring are separate species" would probably be more accurate. Otherwise you would be lumping tigers and lions into the same species. And the reverse is not true, just because two species can produce fertile offspring doesn't mean they are the same species. For example, polar bears are able to breed with brown bears, false killer whales can create fertile offspring with bottle nosed dolphins; not to mention the countless plant hybrids that are possible
Re: (Score:2)
Well... "Two organisms that cannot produce fertile offspring are separate species" would probably be more accurate. Otherwise you would be lumping tigers and lions into the same species. And the reverse is not true, just because two species can produce fertile offspring doesn't mean they are the same species.
Yeah, the "can they produce fertile offspring" test is really only a way that lets you say that two populations (not organisms, I mean most of the time two males of the same species can't breed :P) are
Re: (Score:2)
The only definition of a species is that two organisms that cannot mate are, by definition, different species.
So, Slashdotters and supermodels are of two different species?
Re:Bzzt! Wrong (Score:4, Funny)
I would like to participate in the study to find out. I will graciously accept the burden of attempting to mate with a supermodel and see if we can produce offspring.
Re:Bzzt! Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The only definition of a species is that two organisms that cannot mate are, by definition, different species.
To illustrate the subtleties in the actual definition(s) used by biologists, a prof in a class I was in wrote a definition very much like the above, and asked the class "What's wrong with this definition?" He was impressed when I spoke up and said "According to that definition, you and I are not the same species." We were (and probably still are ;-) both male, so he just grinned and said "Ya got it." Funny thing was that a good percentage of the class still had a puzzled looks on their faces, so he had to explain to them what I'd just said.
He later mentioned that there are other important problems with such definitions. One is that people generally want "the same X as" to be a transitive relation. But Ma Nature throws monkey wrenches into such things. Thus, the domestic dog Canis familiaris can interbreed with wild wolves and jackals, but wolves and jackals can't interbreed (or rather, they can, but the few offspring are sterile). So dogs are the same species as wolves and jackals, but wolves and jackals are different species. There are many examples like this.
A more subtle sort of example is what are sometimes called "range species", in which matings of critters not too far apart are fertile, but when the distance gets above some threshold, fertile hybrids are no longer possible. This happens in a lot of shoreline species.
We've had a couple of centuries to work out such ideas, and biologists have been fairly successful at dealing with this fairly important concept. But you need more carefully worded definitions than the above.
If you want to read about an especially difficult "species" distinction, google for the results of mating lions with tigers. That should convince anyone how tricky it is to get the definition right.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason that nobody bothered to classify all those bugs in the amazon... who cares. As long as swatting them kills them, a bug is a bug.
Unless it secretes the cure for cancer or something, it's just not a big deal.
I care more about the species that are very unlike average life. those are the interesting ones. the stuff that lives on ocean floor heat vents, or generate their own light sources, etc.
also, 5.5 million is still a lot of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason that nobody bothered to classify all those bugs in the amazon... who cares. As long as swatting them kills them, a bug is a bug.
Unless it secretes the cure for cancer or something, it's just not a big deal.
However the bug you've just killed might just happen to be the sole pollinator of a plant that is a cure for cancer. You just don't know until you've studied them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bzzt! Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
The notion of interbreeding as the sole definition of species is simply wrong. Even where fertile hybrids are produced, as with brown bears and polar bears, it's still not enough to warrant declaring them the same species. There are a number of factors that go into determining when two populations are members of the same species or not, and producing fertile and fit offspring is only one of them.
Re:That right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, being tasty to humans is one of the most advantageous adaptations a species can have. Well, either the best or the worst, depending on if we raise them or unsustainably collect them from the wild until the population collapses. You don't see cows or chickens or apples or oranges in any danger any time soon, but then again, things have been eaten to extinction. I don't think it's too bad of an idea to, where possible, try to introduce cultivated or farmed endangered species into the food supply. Preservation through consumption.
Mmmmm... Sea Turtle Soup (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you do -- at least, subspecies (or varieties) of cows, chickens, oranges or apples.
For example, there used to be different kinds of apples grown in different regions of the UK. Now, most apples are one of a few varieties that work very well commercially. There are some efforts to introduce other varieties, I'm not sure how successful it's been.
50% of our food comes from three species (wheat, rice, maize). Another 40% (45%? I can't remember) comes from about 30 more species, but in total 30,000 species
Re: (Score:2)
Natural selection and manual selection both have huge limitations. Human self-preservation going forward is not likely hinge significantly on either one when we are now facing the dawn of genetic engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just use ^W instead of ^H a bunch of times
Reading comprehension fail (Score:5, Informative)
They did not "remove a whole group". The previous estimates of 30 to 100 million species also did not include bacteria.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a valid complaint, however... Some of the improved methods for detecting different bacterial species suggest that the answer to the question "How many species are there on the planet?" is "However many species of bacteria there are, plus a small percentage for everything else." Examples of some of the new results: