tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6305030.post107700066900370281..comments2024-03-15T10:20:34.198-07:00Comments on Rhosgobel: Radagast's home: Organizing blogsRadagasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01419540565463343922noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6305030.post-68340965739293632212010-05-12T21:54:23.585-07:002010-05-12T21:54:23.585-07:00Importing comments:
Radagast
Thanks!
I agree...Importing comments:<br /><br />Radagast <br />Thanks! <br /> <br />I agree that there are vastly more species of Bacteria and Archaea in existence than are listed in the numbers above. I got these numbers from Stiling 1996, and, in Stiling's defense, I think he was only counting named/identified species. <br /> <br />Wow, a translation. How cool! Can you leave the permalink for it here when you're done?<br />June 5, 2005, 6:50:16 PM PDT – Like – Reply<br /><br />Abie <br />I laughed my arse off reading this post! Your alternative "ecobiological" blogotaxonomy is a concept worth gold! <br /> <br />I agree with most of what you said about the naive view of "complexity" in the animal kingdom, but I found the figures you give for bacteria species <br />astonishingly low. <br />I don't have my doc here, nor the strength to browse for references, but it might be worth checking. <br />(c'mon Archea + Eubacteria, no more that a tenth of the Chordates? I ain't buying it.. for now) <br /> <br />I'm off translating a bit of your post to speak about it in my french-speaking blog... <br /> <br />Keep up the good work! <br />(pS: sorry that my english is not what it should be]<br />June 5, 2005, 3:52:09 PM PDTRadagasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01419540565463343922noreply@blogger.com