Bro, animals among the most numerous creatures? Bacteria, Archaea, and viruses are surely more numerous. I bet the same applies to fungi and plants. Oh, and protists, since they are unicellular and have twice the total biomass of animals.
In terms of biomass, animals are barely significant. And they are relatively big. So they surely are less numerous than other groups.
I mean, yes, inaccuracy is another issue here. But I assume "the most numerous" means better than average, or at lest not the worst in its category (unless you actually standardize for the time since divergence, then there are probably some niche microbial taxa, some rare extremophiles, that are actually less numerous; still, surely worse than average).
Yeah, you're right. Some definitions are more limited, but others cover anything that can move of its own accord. I don't think fungi or plants qualify, though.
You don't understand, I coulda had chill. I could have been a capybara. I coulda been somebody... instead of a human, which is what I am, let's face it.
27 Comments
MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net · 43 pts · 1y
jupyter_rain@discuss.tchncs.de · 37 pts · 1y
2
HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 24 pts · 1y
Nothing wrong with me
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 1y
3
Zwiebel@feddit.org · 13 pts · 1y
Nothing wrong with me
Zelaf@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 1y
4
jupyter_rain@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 1y
Nothing wrong with me
dabster291@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 1y
5
xXSirDanglesXx@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Nothing wrong with me
Szewek@lemm.ee · 22 pts · 1y
Bro, animals among the most numerous creatures? Bacteria, Archaea, and viruses are surely more numerous. I bet the same applies to fungi and plants. Oh, and protists, since they are unicellular and have twice the total biomass of animals.
In terms of biomass, animals are barely significant. And they are relatively big. So they surely are less numerous than other groups.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115
2deck@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 1y
Count em
bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 1y
Catch em
FooBarrington@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1y
Something wrong with you
Gerudo@lemm.ee · 9 pts · 1y
Technically, they did say AMONG the most numerous.
Szewek@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 1y
I mean, yes, inaccuracy is another issue here. But I assume "the most numerous" means better than average, or at lest not the worst in its category (unless you actually standardize for the time since divergence, then there are probably some niche microbial taxa, some rare extremophiles, that are actually less numerous; still, surely worse than average).
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1y
Who invited this guy?
samus12345@lemm.ee · 0 pts · 1y
I don't think anything that's not an animal can be accurately called a creature.
photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
Then you would be wrong.
samus12345@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 1y
Yeah, you're right. Some definitions are more limited, but others cover anything that can move of its own accord. I don't think fungi or plants qualify, though.
SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
at 1, I'm sitting and thinking of all the beautiful things i could've become.
MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 1y
SidewaysHighways@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
instead of a lyrical oracle and a most appreciative one?
noxypaws@pawb.social · 3 pts · 1y
I am so glad the image went the same place my mind went
now go enjoy this brilliant parody, "I Can Only Count to Four": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ccGjar4Es
M137@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Anyone know what kind of animal that is? I need to see more! (and is it albino?)