Comments on: 1000 New Species

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:28:44 +0000

While, yes I often agree that the media puts spins on things and not always accurately (This has been a trend over the years of newspapers being more interested in snagging readers’ attention to sell papers, raise ratings, etc. instead of actually just publishing the news).

However, the more important issue for me is that we have new species AND we have a fresh carcass of the rock rat–once again giving credence to the fact that while it was thought extinct for 11 million years, it is not–goes in there with the ceolocanth and adds weight to the argument that just because WE (the collective “we” of scientific and popular thought) think creatures that old could not have survived, well in fact they have.

It gives more weight for the case of sea serpents, dinos in Africa, BF, and a whole multitude of other cryptids…

never thought I’d get excited about a rat…of course I do think the cyanide secreting millipede is much cooler…:)

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:26:34 +0000

Sorry – I think I missed both points. I don’t see how they’re trying to change any facts. Over 1000 species, all new to science, have been described from that region over the past decade, averaging 2 a week.

Further, your criticism should really be directed at the WWF Species Conservation Director whom the media is quoting, shouldn’t it? And I don’t think he’s making ludicrous claims in order to “sell more papers”.

Anyway, the point is a little moot. The articles are out there, conservation is an issue, and the Mekong is a hotspot. None of our discussion will change any of that.

Cheers,

Chris.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:26:49 +0000

On the one hand, this does conflate a number of discoveries (both individual species and the collections of exeditions) over the past decade, with plants and small invertebrates predominating. And the WWF does mention some charismatic species like the tiger which really don’t have anything to do with “The 1,000.” Nevertheless, I think the press release and accompanying cool pictures make a good point. Round numbers stick in the heads of almost everyone, including media folks and the general public. As long as the number is genuine, throwing it out there can’t hurt the cause of conservation.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:30:31 +0000

Usually when dealing with media types there’s 2 directions they go: 1) just enough information to let people know what is going on, but not enough for the general masses to know what is actually happening. several important facts are sometimes left out or 2) the event small, really, but they are going to blow this whole thing out of proportion so it sounds like they are doing something great and important. “The president sneezed. There was a ruckuss trying to get to him. During the confusion I (name your reporter) seized the opportunity to get in close and say ‘Bless you’.” By saying a misleading number they are attempting to rally the masses behind protecting the wildlife in the area. Kudos for “trying to do the right thing”, but I don’t agree with changing the facts to do it. Awesome bugs!

By: crapple

crapple — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:04:06 +0000

i hate the media. They always seem to blow everything out of proportion ( such as in the article above ) and make links where there aren’t, and pull all the scientific research out of context, ruining it.

i believe that it is important to get the word out about new species, but without blowing it out of proportion just to sell more papers

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:44:30 +0000

I disagree. I think the more publicity placed on the importance of biodiversity, the better. If the headline “1000 new species” is what’s required to make people realise what we’re losing on this planet, then that’s the way it has to be.

Further, small pets are becoming ever more popular as people live in higher density cities. Here in Australia, reptile ownership has gone through the roof and you could probably build an empire by capitalising on the trend. Well, maybe not that much, but seriously a few hundred percent increase over the past few years.

Thus, critters like lizards, snakes (and they found a new pit viper – crawling through a restaurant), and even the centipedes and spiders – have vast followings around the world. I read once (H. Axelrod) that fish-keeping is second in popularity as a hobby only to photography – hence info on aquatic fauna is also of interest.

I say keep up the good work to mainstream media that promotes new species discoveries.

(As an aside, on the flipside of the coin, I think news stories about extinctions are also important, even though they don’t have that “feel good / there is hope” connotation).

Chris.