• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Evaluating Known Versus Remaining Unknown / Undiscovered Species

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
29,622
Location
Out of Bounds
This story isn't purely cryptozoological, but it strikes me as having a potential relevance to crypto- as well as mainstream zoology. If nothing else, the points made about the low proportion of all species currently known (perhaps only 13 - 18%) should be heartening for those seeking cryptids.

It struck me that the factors these researchers employed to estimate where undiscovered terrestrial vertebrate species are most likely to be found may well be as relevant to cryptids as to recognized taxonomic groups.
New 'Map of Life' Reveals Where Unknown Animals May Still Live on Earth

Maps usually exist for the purpose of charting landscapes of the known. In times of crisis, though, maps of the unknown may be just as vital a resource.

That's the thinking behind a new scientific effort to map all the places on Earth where undiscovered species are most likely to be living today.

Against the backdrop of the world's biodiversity crisis – in which we're losing known and presumably unknown species at an alarming rate – such speculative cartography may prove our best and only chance to document, classify, and possibly save animals before they are permanently surrendered to extinction, scientists warn.

"Conservative estimates suggest only 13 to 18 percent of all living species may be known at this point, although this number could be as low as 1.5 percent," researchers from Yale University explain in a new study.

"Without inclusion in conservation decision-making and international commitments, these [undiscovered] species and their functions may be forever lost in ignorance." ...

To address this 'biodiversity shortfall', ecologists Mario Moura and Walter Jetz created a model extrapolating where unknown species of terrestrial vertebrates might likely exist today, based on biological, environmental, and sociological factors associated with the over 32,000 terrestrial vertebrates already known to biologists. ...

FULL STORY:
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-ma...h-where-undiscovered-creatures-may-be-lurking

PUBLISHED REPORT: (Abstract Alone Is Publicly Accessible):
Moura, M.R., Jetz, W.
Shortfalls and opportunities in terrestrial vertebrate species discovery.
Nat Ecol Evol (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01411-5

SOURCE: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01411-5

INTERACTIVE MAP: https://mol.org/patterns/discovery
 
To me, there is a HUGE difference between the discovery of new species (which clearly is a real deal) and modern cryptozoology.

The new animals being found are almost always called "cryptids" only after the fact by connecting them back to fuzzy local tales. And, the established list of cryptids doesn't get any shorter. It just doesn't feel fair to call a new ungulate that is discovered to be slightly different than an already known local ungulate as a "cryptid" and claim it as a victory for cryptozoology when there never was a mystery about it. It was not predicted. Also, most people who call themselves cryptozoologists aren't zoologists out looking for valid new species, they are chasing down legends. (Dr. Shuker and I strongly disagree on this point. To which I say: you haven't been following mainstream cryptozoology lately. Lacking any scientific organization, It's been lost forever to the Internet, the re-enchantment of the landscape (monsters, demons, paranormal, occult), and speculative zoology.)
 
This newly published study focusing on mammals arrives at similar conclusions about the environments most likely to harbor as-yet-unrecognized species.
100s of Undiscovered Mammal Species Could Still Be Out There in The Wild
CARLY CASSELLA 28 MARCH 2022

Mammals are some of the most well-researched animals on Earth, yet there are potentially hundreds of undescribed species still hiding in the wild, according to new predictive modeling.

Machine learning suggests most of these unknown creatures are small-bodied, like bats, rodents, and shrews. Their size has probably made it difficult for experts to identify morphological differences, meaning some species have been lumped together, taxonomically speaking.

"Small, subtle differences in appearance are harder to notice when you're looking at a tiny animal that weighs 10 grams than when you're looking at something that is human-sized," explains biologist Bryan Carstens from Ohio State University.

"You can't tell they are different species unless you do a genetic analysis."

Scientists refer to these hidden species as 'biodiversity wildcards'. Unless we know they exist, we can't consider these creatures in evolutionary theory, food webs, or conservation work.

According to the most recent predictive models, over 80 percent of mammals have probably already received a formal classification. With more than 6,400 mammal species described on record, that would mean there are still over a thousand unknown species in need of formal classification.

Using machine learning to analyze gene sequences and geographic and biological data from over 4,000 mammals, researchers have identified which taxa are most likely to harbor hidden species.

By figuring out where these taxa usually live, the authors have helped highlight ecosystems for future taxonomic research. ...

The current model found that around the world, most undescribed mammals fall into orders that include bats, rodents, and shrews and hedgehogs. These orders also tend to be found in wider geographic ranges with relatively high variability in temperature and precipitation, like tropical rainforests.

The results are what taxonomists have long suspected. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-estimate-the-number-of-mammal-species-left-to-be-discovered
 
I don't think that all self-styled cryptozoologists know the difference between "cryptids" and "cryptic" species. I see it used interchangeably in some locations. It's been pretty clear for the last two decades that new species are just as readily found in museum drawers as in the "unexplored" areas of the world. But so what? Evolution, yep?

This is only one reason why "Cuvier's rash dictum" gambit needs to just stop... It simply isn't useful.
 
Back
Top