This is some nice art illustrating the relative number of species in each clade in a particular environment. Insects, illustrated by a ginormous beetle, are the most diverse group, but spiders and other arthropods make a good showing, with that colorful mite on the left. Tetrapods are relatively insignificant — I suspect part of the reason for that is that we have exterminated so many of our fellow terrestrial vertebrates. Molluscs are surprisingly successful, but I’m not at all surprised at the size of those fungi.
I do not begrudge the insects their dominance, because after all, that’s spider food.
Inordinate fondness for beetles? Spiders have?
There are many beetles I like. Seeing the occasional freakish beetle larva in my yard is an experience. The stout adults are kinda cool looking.
But one beetle I cannot cotton too is the evil little carpet beetle. Some years ago I was involved in a brutal war with those little monsters, flying about my head and winding up crawling along my ceiling. They aren’t really that bad at anything. But damn them. I pinpointed a source to an oatmeal container in my cabinet. Since then I see them less frequently, but lately I think they are planning a comeback.
I can’t recall Gould’s measure, it wasn’t number of described species, that placed Modal Bacter as supreme. Biomass?
That looks like a Mousketeer beetle.
I’m surprised that amphibians outnumber mammals – relatively small variation (compared with bats to whales) and restricted habitat (again, bats to whales, and warm-blooded meaning a lot more possibilities in colder climates). Maybe it’s just a function of time. And surprised that reptiles outnumber mammals by quite a bit.
To paraphrase Haldane, nature has in inordinate fondness for beetles.
Bacteria; lots of species there.
Archaea, too.
(The bulk of biomass on Earth, I think)
9040 bird species is daunting. I’ve only have 100 or so on my life list.
I hope tRUMP, the elongated muskrat and the magat ‘america first’ wingnuts don’t see this, it will be a horrible blow to their outsized egos that they aren’t kings of the earth.
I suspect that the nematode would be a whole lot bigger if there weren’t so many undescribed (and unexamined) species.
#6: 9040 is a gross undercount. I get 11,214. But my life list is only 2,470.
Respectfully, is this an error: “the relative number of species in each clade in a particular environment.”? I was trying to figure out how that could be a consistent number (I would naively assume that it varied with environment). So, I looked at the illustration’s key; I think the area just represents total number of species worldwide. Or am I wrong about that?
John Harshman — that original graphic by Quentin Wheeler and Frances Fawcett is from 1990 so it’s missing 34 years of reported species.
Information you retain for no reason, other than your mind won’t let it go. In my college biology, circa 1980, the Prof. informed us that 80% of life on earth are insects. Stunning and creepy at the same time.
“Spider food” made me chuckle this morning … thanks!
If you follow the link in the OP, there are multiple variants. Different artists changed out which individual organism represented the clade, and most of them changed the mite to a spider.