species loss data

[Guest guest]

Just as the current financial ³crisis² may be more an emotional issue than

one that can be intelligently quantified, it seems likewise for the

species-extinction ³crisis.² How can anyone say they really know one way or

the other? Scientists understand the extinction cycle just as they

understand the birth and death of stars in the cosmos. In other words - they

don¹t.

 

In the case of the Times writer latching onto a popular headline and

promoting her own agenda, well, what¹s newsworthy about that! The NYT

agenda is not focused on helping animals or resolving any crisis, perceived

or real. What we should focus on is the pain and suffering that comes from

our mucking about with the biodiversity on this planet, as mentioned in the

very last lines of this post. ³Planetarian² efforts are needed regardless

of the gains and losses on the meat and stock market. Animals are loosing

homes faster then Americans - there¹s the focal point. To insinuate that

this ³migration² is a positive trend is ludicrous, unless one looks coldly

at these numbers as fodder for further research, and research grants. Well,

we can be sure of one thing - the crisis will get worse before it gets...to

a point where we can understand it.

Jigs

 

 

On 10/17/08 12:15 PM, " Merritt Clifton " <anmlpepl wrote:

 

> Further to the present widespread panic about the alleged

> loss of large numbers of species, it is worthwhile to note that

> rediscoveries of species previously believed to have been extinct

> have far outpaced confirmed extinctions for more than 20 years now,

> as scientists gain a better understanding of the breadth of

> distribution of the small species such as insects who have always

> made up the great majority of reported extinctions.

>

> Meanwhile, the total numbers of species known to exist keeps

> increasing by leaps and bounds.

>

> Three years ago, for example, 260 insects, 50 plants,

> 30 freshwater fish, seven types of frog, six lizards, five crabs,

> two snakes and a toad were added to the list of species known to

> exist on Borneo and believed to be unique to Borneo.

>

> Just this month, Australian scientists announced the

> discovery of 274 previously unknown species of fish, corals,

> molluscs, crustaceans, and sponges, found in deep water off

> Tasmania.

>

> Far from declining, known biodiversity is increasing

> globally at astonishing speed, from three different directions.

>

> Discovery of new species is one of them.

>

> Migration of species -- human-caused or otherwise -- is

> another, which frequently results in the translocated species

> developing specific adaptations to their new habitat and thereby

> diverging from their ancestors.

>

> Deliberate creation of species through manipulating DNA is a

> third path. As yet, this has produced just a few accidently

> released plant species to join natural biodiversity, but the process

> is still very new, and the likelihood of more species escaping into

> the wild is inescapable.

>

> The much-ballyhooed projections of losses of species have

> three points of origin, all fundamentally erroneous.

>

> The first is projecting the existence of immense numbers of

> undiscovered species -- which is reasonable in view of the pace of

> species discovery -- and then projecting that huge numbers of these

> species will be killed off before we find out that they ever existed.

>

> We are indeed finding immense numbers of previously

> undiscovered species, and some seem to be quite rare and highly

> specialized, hence potentially in jeopardy; but most are doing

> quite well in their habitat niches, isolated and extreme though many

> of them are, and documented losses of recently discovered species

> are practically nil.

>

> The second mistake is failing to count introduced species in

> assessing biodiversity. A quick example of the magnitude of this

> error:

>

>> Friendly Invaders

>> By CARL ZIMMER

>> Published: New York Times, September 8, 2008

>>

>> New Zealand is home to 2,065 native plants found nowhere else

>> on Earth. They range from magnificent towering kauri trees to tiny

>> flowers that form tightly packed mounds called vegetable sheep.

>> When Europeans began arriving in New Zealand, they brought

>> with them alien plants - crops, garden plants and stowaway weeds.

>> Today, 22,000 non-native plants grow in New Zealand. Most of them

>> can survive only with the loving care of gardeners and farmers. But

>> 2,069 have become naturalized: they have spread out across the

>> islands on their own. There are more naturalized invasive plant

>> species in New Zealand than native species.

>> It sounds like the makings of an ecological disaster: an

>> epidemic of invasive species that wipes out the delicate native

>> species in its path. But in a paper published in August in The

>> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dov Sax, an

>> ecologist at Brown University, and Steven D. Gaines, a marine

>> biologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, point out

>> that the invasion has not led to a mass extinction of native plants.

>> The number of documented extinctions of native New Zealand plant

>> species is a grand total of three.

>

> In short, species introductions have increased the botanical

> biodiversity of New Zealand tenfold, and have doubled the number of

> plant species who are able to survive without human help, at net

> loss of just three " native " species.

>

> The third mistake is projecting the results from species

> introductions to isolated island habitats, where biodiversity is low

> to begin with, to mainland habitats, where thousands more species

> compete to fill every niche. Sometimes species introductions to

> isolated island habitats can reduce biodiversity -- but even this

> much-remarked phenomenon turns out to be relatively rare.

>

> For example, New Zealand consists entirely of island

> habitats. See above. Ascension Island is among the most isolated of

> island habitats, and is a place where species introductions are

> often claimed to have done great harm, yet Ascension Island now

> hosts a rather unique rainforest of introduced species, with a net

> increase in biodiversity. Hawaii, another constellation of islands,

> has lost many native bird species to human disturbance, with many

> others in danger; but Hawaiian net biodiversity has increased

> greatly, and even total avian biodiversity is apparently just about

> what it always was.

>

> None of this in any way detracts from the clear and present

> danger to Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, and leopards, nor to

> the clear and present dangers to many other large, charismatic

> megafauna.

>

> What is clear, however, is that miscasting the issues

> afflicting these species as a " biodiversity crisis " is not helping

> the species in most need of help.

>

> The problem is not a " biodiversity crisis " ; it is human

> intolerance of other species who eat livestock or crops, and

> continuing markets for other species' body parts, whether poached or

> shot as hunting trophies.