One of the questions of QI on Channel 2 a few weeks ago was “where is the best place to find a new species?”

There must be dozens of different ways to answer that question. Where would you look?

On the topic of what to look for, it’s a good idea to avoid mammals, flowering plants, birds and dragonflies because the total number of species of those will remain pretty constant from now on – partly because few new species are being found and partly because many synonyms are being found between species that were thought to be different.

One source says that for new animal species in Europe, the number of new species found by amateurs now exceeds the number found by professionals. Of 5,881 new animal species in Europe between 1998 and 2007, beetles accounted for 23%, hymenoptera (wasps, bees and ants) accounted for 20%, new millipedes 14%, mites 10% and butterflies and moths 6%. 3% or so are accounted for by each of spiders, molluscs, nematodes, bugs and springtails. Of vertebrates, freshwater fish seem the best bet.

The bottom of the oceans

Your backyard.

rumpole said:

The bottom of the oceans

You’d think so, or in rainforests

Dropbear said:

rumpole said:

The bottom of the oceans

You’d think so, or in rainforests

Didn’t you guys read the part about amateurs?

roughbarked said:

Dropbear said:

rumpole said:

The bottom of the oceans

You’d think so, or in rainforests

Didn’t you guys read the part about amateurs?

Nope

Read ? At this time in the morning ?

rumpole said:

Read ? At this time in the morning ?

:)

It is often a problem for me as well.

Better dead than read

pinch and a punch for the first of the month…

Arts said:

pinch and a punch for the first of the month…

A hit and a kick for being so quick

No returns

in the genetic sequence

I would be looking underground.

Speedy said:

I would be looking underground.

I would be looking in the deep ocean

The bottom of the oceans

Your backyard.

Both good answers.

The places where new species are mostly found are are in different habitats, whether these be large or small, in the ocean or on land. There are huge numbers of plants yet to be discovered, I even found three last year in a different soil type to those surrounding it. Vast areas are yet to be explored botanically including Australia, with many turning up during environmental assessments of new mine sites, others where access is difficult and without tracks and that is most of outback Australia.

Mammals have their own problems and new ones could and probably have disappeared without any human intervention. This situation is brought about by the number of introduced predators we have introduced to Australia, which silently go about their business in virtually all parts of the country 24 hours a day and will continue until they die themselves. In less interfered environments like PNG and remote forests and inaccessible areas, new species are being discovered on a regular basis. However, the only reason these animals still exist is because we and our animals have not sufficiently intruded into their habitat.

rumpole said:

The bottom of the oceans

You’d be better off looking in the top 10 cm (depending on time of day).

You’ll need a good microscope and a PhD in Phyto/Zooplankton taxonomy, but there’s plenty there waiting to be described.

If you don’t want to spend your life at sea, then go for Mycology.

If you really want a challenge go for Coleoptera. They’re still finding new beetles.
They are our true insect overlords.

Teleost said:

rumpole said:

The bottom of the oceans

You’d be better off looking in the top 10 cm (depending on time of day).

You’ll need a good microscope and a PhD in Phyto/Zooplankton taxonomy, but there’s plenty there waiting to be described.

If you don’t want to spend your life at sea, then go for Mycology.

If you really want a challenge go for Coleoptera. They’re still finding new beetles.
They are our true insect overlords.

Yeah.

I have found that host plants and healthy soils are all about how to find new species in your backyard.

It’s what’s called a species area relationship.

There’s been loads of papers about it with lots of pretty ‘S’ curve graphs.

The bottom line is, the longer and harder you look, the more you find. It just gets to a point of diminishing returns where the rarest species take so much work to find, it’s simply not worth the effort.

You’ll eventually find new species of bacteria on the plaque at Martin Place if you spend long enough looking.

Good answers from at least five of you. Thanks.

Any idea how close we are to cheap genetic sequencing of mitochondrial (ie the most plentiful) DNA?

mollwollfumble said:

Good answers from at least five of you. Thanks.

Any idea how close we are to cheap genetic sequencing of mitochondrial (ie the most plentiful) DNA?

More to the point, which five?

mollwollfumble said:

Any idea how close we are to cheap genetic sequencing of mitochondrial (ie the most plentiful) DNA?

It looks like very little has been done.

For instance, only a couple of insect species even with mitochondrial DNA. There is a proposal to sequence 5,000 insect genomes for $5 million, but the proposal was only last year and they haven’t even decided on which species to sequence yet. I eagerly look forward to the day when a significant percentage of museum specimens have been sequenced at least to mitochondrial DNA level, at present the allocation of which species is which (except for mammals and birds) relies solely on physical appearance.