I think you can do math about the rate at which you discover new species when pulling out random samples of fish in comparison to the amount of fish species you already found: if you have very few of the species discovered a random sample of fish would yield almost only new species. If you have a high amount discovered you'd get almost no new fish in your sample. Idk the formulas used tho sorry. I saw a video of this with moths species at some point, i think by Matt Parker. There was also recently a numberphile video about catching Pokémon that can probably extrapolated into making a formula for that stuff.
Ah if there’s a stand up maths video on it I will watch it PRONTO! Thank you very much. My question was more a joke about how they somehow have a maximum in their quote “as many as”, when I would think it would be a minimum.
I'd read some research-result release that said there is a specific virus-fungus combination that all colony-collapse hives had both of ( & their immune-systems were essentially non-functional: they were infected with EVERYTHING ),
vs colonies which had 0 or 1 of the 2.
I don't remember the names of either the virus or the fungus.
When we keep importing/exporting contaminated bits of wildlife, there are consequences.
This is one of those “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” situations. The article is full of statements about how all pollinators are in trouble. The headline is clickbait. If honeybees serve as a poster child for pollinator awareness, that’s a good thing.
Yeah, I despise the honey industry profiteering off of this, when they're even partially responsible for killing off proper pollinators, but if we stop using certain pesticides to protect the honey bees, that will likely benefit non-honey bees and other pollinators, too.
Biodiversity
Hot