tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1795467912359226671..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Do Invertebrates Really Make Up 80% of All Species on Earth?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16103446756857609632014-03-21T07:58:30.649-04:002014-03-21T07:58:30.649-04:00Didn't the original reference state; "of ...Didn't the original reference state; "of all described species?" ..."described" as in "named" or just generally categorized (as in categories like virus, bacteria, or invertebrates, or even multi-cellular?) How would you accurately describe percentages of described species? (BTW, I did mean "bait" as in fishing either for sport or food:>) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01549868891431751944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18327829873529682242014-03-17T13:06:45.182-04:002014-03-17T13:06:45.182-04:00Well it all started out fun and got funnier..then ...Well it all started out fun and got funnier..then came the mean spirit of de-bait...sigh...so actually I will use the simple 80% of multi-cellular species, that we know of, are invertebrates...is that safe to put into a powerpoint about plant "pests" and IPM?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01549868891431751944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12475485815287241142013-11-25T15:09:06.929-05:002013-11-25T15:09:06.929-05:00Maybe animals and plants make up such a large perc...Maybe animals and plants make up such a large percentage of "described" species because they are easier to describe. "Single-celled eukaryotes, fungi, and bacteria make up such a small percentage of total (described)* species (<1%) that they don't even register on this summary!" Maybe we don't know the real total number of single-celled and fungal species, but we can estimate their biomass. I assure you, they make up way more than 1% of Earth's total biomass.Legshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06809422312565919029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49911334241930451312013-03-31T13:33:16.356-04:002013-03-31T13:33:16.356-04:00I'm still unable to see where anyone said &quo...I'm still unable to see where anyone said "You shouldn't use numbers because we don't know." <br /><br />The issue is "You shouldn't use numbers that are way, way, way off the mark."<br /><br />There is no way someone would correctly interpret ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH as meaning "only multicellular species", with or without including fungi. "ALL THE SPECIES" means all the species. <br /><br />Suppose someone on a geology blog said the earth is "A HUNDRED TRILLION QUINTILLION DECILLION YEARS OLD" and, when taken to task, replied "I just wanted to get across that the earth is very old, and I thought that made the point in a more striking way then if I used the correct figure". Would you buy that?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60145868930455968352013-03-31T09:33:56.262-04:002013-03-31T09:33:56.262-04:00b-g, just so you know, I thought 'is that a th...b-g, just so you know, I thought 'is that a threat?' was bizarre, too. But then, I'm used to Larry writing bizarre things.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81571001731060772642013-03-31T08:28:33.115-04:002013-03-31T08:28:33.115-04:00FFS. How can you possibly read “don’t get in my wa...FFS. How can you possibly read “don’t get in my way” as a threat?<br />Just to be 100% clear: it’s not a threat. It’s a request for you to stop being pedantic and wasting my time. Frankly, it never would have occurred to me in a million years that someone would think that was a threat.<br /><br />What the heck you think an imaginary blue insect-woman on the internet would threaten you *with* I am a bit curious about, though! Virtual bed bugs in your skivvies??<br /><br />I'm here, I'm trying to engage with you, I have shown that I am willing to discuss the points that you wanted to quibble with. You've moved the goal post steadily throughout this discussion. <br />'Your numbers are wrong' became 'you shouldn't use numbers because we don't know.' <br />I have been clear through this whole thing that I was talking about all multicellular organisms; it was YOUR interpretation that I didn't include fungi. I checked the math that I pulled from the original (peer reviewed) journal article, and got the same result. <br /><br />Now that it is clear that I am not threatening you (Really?? Wow.) I am done.bug_girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129751205352584782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59843636189593679772013-03-28T11:18:42.558-04:002013-03-28T11:18:42.558-04:00What a horrible person.What a horrible person.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54397724743989856592013-03-28T10:51:40.119-04:002013-03-28T10:51:40.119-04:00@bug_girl
Thank-you for changing your statement f...@bug_girl<br /><br />Thank-you for changing your statement from "EIGHTY PERCENT OF ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH" to EIGHTY PERCENT OF ALL MULTICELLULAR SPECIES ON EARTH." I'm sorry you think this is a pedantic point. I don't. I think it's important that the general public know about species that aren't plants or animals (or fungi). <br /><br /><i>1. What is the actual number (which I'm happy to correct and discuss)</i><br /><br />We don't know the actual numbers because: (a) the definition of "species" is ambiguous, and (b) we've only begun to characterize protists and bacteria. That's why I suggested that you say, "Nobody knows exactly how many species there are. There may be millions of species of bacteria and other small organisms. But among the big multicellular species, arthropods, especially insects, rule the roost. There are more known arthropod species, by far, than all plants, fungi (mushrooms etc.), and other animals combined."<br /><br /><i>2. How should we talk about things which, because of the nature of science, we will never have an exact number for? (which I think you totally don't get)</i><br /><br />See above. One can do even better by explaining to the general public WHY we will never have an exact number and why we have to be cautious about quoting numbers that seem to be exact.<br /><br /><i>Arguing that I shouldn't use any numbers is the same argument that is made by climate change denialists to dismiss decades of research. "You don't know for sure!"</i><br /><br />Now you're just being silly. My points were that your number was wrong—thank-you for correcting it—and that we really don't know the exact number of species in any major taxon. <br /><br /><i>Nope, I don't know the firm numbers for sure. Probably never will. But I do know *proportionally* the abundance of different kinds of life on earth; and talking about that publicly in a way that motivates people is important to me. </i><br /><br />This thread has demonstrated that, in fact, you DID NOT know proportionally the percentage of arthropods relative to ALL species on Earth. You didn't even know the exact percentage there were relative to all multicellular species because you forgot to include fungi in your calculation. <br /><br />I share your concern about educating the general public. I guess we just disagree about the facts and about which important concepts need explaining.<br /><br /><i>Not to you? Fine!<br />Don't do it my way.<br />But don't get in my way either.</i><br /><br />Is that a threat? <br /> Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23532616815834185192013-03-28T09:07:03.895-04:002013-03-28T09:07:03.895-04:00Umm, maybe it's just me but I don't see wh...Umm, maybe it's just me but I don't see where anyone has said you should never use numbers.<br /><br />The problem was with your taking a number that was reasonably accurate for a particular context (percentage of multicellular organisms, excluding fungi, that are inverterbrates) but then using it in a context where it was grossly, wildly <i>inaccurate</i> (percentage of ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH that are invertebrates). That latter number is not 80%. Not even close to it. <br /><br />It was an error, you've now corrected it, end of story.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66792520035826617932013-03-28T08:53:03.522-04:002013-03-28T08:53:03.522-04:00Ok, I went back to the paper that was the source o...Ok, I went back to the paper that was the source of my numbers, added in their upper estimate for fungi, and....still get about 80% species that are inverts.<br />I am happy to amend the post to make it clearer that I was talking about MULTICELLULAR organisms, which I have done.<br /><br />But you are still missing the point. To argue that the estimates we make in our research--because those numbers were from a paper in a major journal, not out of my ass--are meaningless is to argue that we then can't talk about them. There are two different things going on here:<br /><br />1. What is the actual number (which I'm happy to correct and discuss)<br /><br />2. How should we talk about things which, because of the nature of science, we will never have an exact number for? (which I think you totally don't get)<br /><br />Arguing that I shouldn't use any numbers is the same argument that is made by climate change denialists to dismiss decades of research. "You don't know for sure!"<br /><br />Nope, I don't know the firm numbers for sure. Probably never will. But I do know *proportionally* the abundance of different kinds of life on earth; and talking about that publicly in a way that motivates people is important to me. <br />Not to you? Fine! <br />Don't do it my way. <br />But don't get in my way either.bug_girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129751205352584782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80752071283350978372013-03-27T08:17:24.344-04:002013-03-27T08:17:24.344-04:00I surely have some problems communicating in Engli...I surely have some problems communicating in English, but I’m sorry to say that you seem to have problems with thoroughly reading and understanding comments. <br /><br />Here is how I refer to Carl and his work:<br /><br /><i>…as most of you probably know, Carl Zimmer is one of the most knowledgeable scholars writing about viruses. If you haven’t, you should read his fascinating and informative book “A Planet of Viruses”</i><br /><br />To me that’s very clear. However, the point of my comments was not about Carl or about Dr. Weiss (and I don’t mean that in a ironic or demeaning way). My point was about the dogma of viruses as virus particles, which has distorted our view about the nature and evolution of viruses to the extent that even the most knowledgeable people about viruses, such as Carl or about Dr. Weiss, have fallen victims to this misleading dogma. <br /><br />And, they are not alone; the entire field has been plagued by this dogma: <br /><br /><i>“Indeed, due the dogma of viruses as virus particles, thousands of scientific articles and books written during the last century contain embarrassing errors that border the pseudo-science realm. Take for example, the following quote (7), which is highly representative of the modern, scientific description of viruses: “all viruses differ fundamentally from cells, which have both DNA and RNA, in that viruses contain only one type of nucleic acid, which may be either DNA or RNA.” Despite the common knowledge that, within their host cells, the so called DNA viruses have both nucleic acids, even James Watson, the eminent scientist who arguably knows the nucleic acids better than anyone, has failed victim to this dogma.”</i><br /><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90570446448641349892013-03-27T06:09:58.574-04:002013-03-27T06:09:58.574-04:00...so you are confirming that this is a opedentic ......so you are confirming that this is a opedentic ne-upmanship crusade against Carl?<br /><br />TheOtherJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01727633779107067250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83265608706783709232013-03-26T21:55:33.007-04:002013-03-26T21:55:33.007-04:00LM, I see you, or someone, was accused of "ma...LM, I see you, or someone, was accused of "mansplaining" something in the comments section of bug_girl post.<br />Sigh.<br />Is there a similar dismissive term for a scientist explaining something?<br />Again...sigh.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29736424629361972142013-03-26T19:56:53.326-04:002013-03-26T19:56:53.326-04:00Well, whether my comment generated useful discussi...Well, whether my comment generated useful discussion, or not, is secondary. What’s more important is that Carl will no longer mislead his readers in the future by saying that: <i>“Viruses…they’re just protein shells that package a few genes, which they insert into a host cell” </i>. That might not be important for you, but significant for many other readers. <br /><br />And, when it comes about citations, in discussing an issue on which you have something important to say, self-citations are is inevitable; of course, if you have something to cite on the issue! The alternative would be not to bring your own ideas for discussion in an open forum, which I recognize is not very 'smart.' Have you noticed how many scientists participate in discussion about their published ideas here or on other blogs? Not many and that might be for a good reason!<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5708335460241330442013-03-26T17:35:52.490-04:002013-03-26T17:35:52.490-04:00At first I took this as a fairly light hearted jok...At first I took this as a fairly light hearted joke akin to "hey, you skimmed right over my favorites!" but as I think about it I can imagine quite a few people I know just accepting that number on face value, and then ironically if I were to explain the actual bounds of that measurement they'd be less interested in science and less willing to discuss it with me because I'm always trumping everything they think they know.<br /><br />'Outside of the microscopic world,' "invertebrates make up 80% of all species" seems like a fairly pithy way to convey that we're not talking about literally ALL species, but rather the ones your target audience is most interested in anyway, and using that as a preface draws a fuzzy enough line that we could just have our nerd huddle to argue if or what fraction of fungi aren't covered by it.<br /><br />I know it's harder when you're writing a whole piece but blanket statements are especially dangerous when they present misleading definitions for the vocabulary you'd encounter in a high school classroom.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15979531267197144962013-03-26T17:32:52.403-04:002013-03-26T17:32:52.403-04:00Yes, mimivirus and the giant viruses are interesti...Yes, mimivirus and the giant viruses are interesting exceptions in the viral world. It would be interesting if more such specimens were found, but at the moment, they remain outliers. <br /><br />In contrast, I was very excited to read about the Oxytricha genome. Or about proteins that arise from trans-spliced RNAs, with parts encoded on both the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. But I don't run about harassing science writers who fail to discuss the complexities of macronucleus/ micronucleus cycles, or the possibility that single peptides can come from products spliced between two separate genomes when they write to a general audience. <br /><br />And re: you comments below. You are correct that I did not read your citations. This is partially due to my distaste for self-citation, and due to your post seeming like little more than some creepy stalker, harassing a well-know science writer. You discredit yourself behaving like this. Note the difference in tone between Larry's post, and your comment. Only one of them seems to be generating a useful discussion. TheOtherJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01727633779107067250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44401755947164900572013-03-26T17:29:29.639-04:002013-03-26T17:29:29.639-04:00Correction: the sentence “Dr. Robert Weiss is a re...Correction: the sentence “Dr. Robert Weiss is a renewed virologist and outstanding scientist”, in my comment above, should read: "Dr. Robin Weiss is a renowned virologist and outstanding scientist"Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75685346181541069322013-03-26T17:23:06.360-04:002013-03-26T17:23:06.360-04:00It did indeed. I will however restrain myself and ...It did indeed. I will however restrain myself and merely point out that more people like birds than biochemists.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51625223152804233932013-03-26T17:17:33.367-04:002013-03-26T17:17:33.367-04:00Not a sphere at all. It's a good deal wider at...Not a sphere at all. It's a good deal wider at the equator, and due to the disproportion of ocean to continent the southern hemisphere is a bit wider than the northern counterpart.<br /><br />These details are indistinguishable, from our typical human scale (they all look much the same as "flat" unless you're watching a boat row out to the horizon,) but we care about these big picture descriptions as far as they do something useful for us but as we grow used to them the old perspective is lost, except when we want to dig up its grave to poke fun at it.<br /><br />Spreading the pedantry around evenly this other 'Jim' has made a mistake in complaining about the number of dimensions. A two dimensional plane is indistinguishable from a three dimensional plane that has so little curvature as our Earth, but I suspect he stepped even further out of context as he then references geometric shapes like one would draw on a sheet of paper. Round is a word that most certainly applies to spheres so I suggest that in the future he should take a little more care in preparing his pedantic tangents.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88118965197426371272013-03-26T16:48:44.080-04:002013-03-26T16:48:44.080-04:00Let's go sillier: Calibi Yau manifolds. Sort o...Let's go sillier: Calibi Yau manifolds. Sort of an infinite smear of those, easily one or more at the location of any particle.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23171625888541529422013-03-26T16:45:40.605-04:002013-03-26T16:45:40.605-04:00Maybe he's hearing about it repeatedly.Maybe he's hearing about it repeatedly.Shokuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12107696954466417617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8123204508161406002013-03-26T15:36:20.704-04:002013-03-26T15:36:20.704-04:00I visited bug_girl’s post and I learned that, acco...I visited bug_girl’s post and I learned that, according to Larry, the top three criteria in good science education and good science journalism are:<br /><br />1. Accuracy<br />2. Accuracy<br />3. Accuracy<br /><br />How should this criteria be applied, universally, or just case by case based on who is saying it, and on what ideas we try to protect or promote? <br /><br />During my visit at bug_girl’s post, I also learned that, according to Robert Thomas, the top three things that get non-scientists irritated with some scientists are:<br /><br />1. Pedantry<br />2. Self-righteousness<br />3. Arguing a useless point for no reason<br /><br />So, now I understand why TheOtherJim referred to one of my comments (see above) as pedantic. <br /><br />Obviously, Jim did not read the references included in the comment, otherwise, I think, he would have understood that my comment entitled “What is a virus Carl” was an ironic (not ‘rude’) play on a previous comment entitled “What is a virus Dr. Weiss?” <br /><br />Dr. Robert Weiss is a renewed virologist and outstanding scientist. He wrote a questionable (in my view) review of Carl Zimmer’s book “A Planet of Viruses” in Nature, in which he made the point that Carl’s book is ‘dumbing down’ the science of virology.<br /><br />I happen to think that Carl’s book is very interesting and informative, so I wrote a comment emphasizing the irony that he (Dr. Weiss) as well as other “seasoned virologists”, by not knowing what a virus is, have been ‘dumbing down’ the science of virology, well, forever (and it was not their fault!).<br /><br />You would think that Carl, who writes more about viruses than any other person on planet Earth would have changed his view about viruses, but I was wrong; so, I thought of reminding him about what virus is. I have hunch that Carl will never write again that: <i>“Viruses…they’re just protein shells that package a few genes, which they insert into a host cell”</i>. Does anybody want to bet on that?<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04987489537796352657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5357910699016208412013-03-26T12:32:21.978-04:002013-03-26T12:32:21.978-04:00John Harshman asks,
Was that intended specificall...John Harshman asks,<br /><br /><i>Was that intended specifically to provoke me?</i><br /><br />Yes. Did it work? :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31967445155970896992013-03-26T12:22:28.771-04:002013-03-26T12:22:28.771-04:00The issue seems much simpler than you are making i...The issue seems much simpler than you are making it out to be, bug_girl.<br /><br />80% is the proportion of species on earth that are inveterbrates, <i>if one excludes single-celled eukaryotes, fungi, and bacteria</i>. No one is quibbling about the accuracy of that figure. However, when you go on to say that this 80%, instead, represents the proportion of "ALL THE SPECIES ON EARTH", then that means <i>including</i> single-celled eukaryotes, fungi, and bacteria. So the figure is grossly inaccurate. It would be no big deal if you just admitted your error and apologized. But for some reason you are going on trying to pretend this error was not an error, and criticizing those who have pointed it out. Why? <br /><br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74674314957349576722013-03-26T11:54:32.560-04:002013-03-26T11:54:32.560-04:00Simply dealing with fungi alone, this paper (http:...Simply dealing with fungi alone, this paper (http://www.amjbot.org/content/98/3/426.full ) suggests 5.1 million species.<br /><br />Adding in your numbers this drops invertebrates to 20% of all species, although we have still discounted most of the eukaryotic lineages.The Loraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.com