I had always thought that Nature was a "Science magazine", but I guess I was
wrong. Or maybe their definition of "science" is different than mine.

Refer to an article at http://www.nature.com/nsu/021028/021028-11.html
entitled "Dying plants double"

New calculation of threatened species gives startling result.
1 November 2002

HELEN PEARSON

Nearly half of the world's plants could be close to extinction, scientists have
warned.  The calculation triples previous estimates.
>>>     "... could be close to extinction ..." THEN IT IS EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE THAT
THEY COULD BE "FAR FROM EXTINCTION".

The number of plants on the standard Red List of threatened plant species is a
massive underestimate, say the botanists, because it lacks data on tropical
forests.  When estimates from here are taken into account, the fraction of
species under threat spirals from 13% to between 22% and 47%1.

>>>     WHAT KIND OF PRECISION IS THIS ".. between 22% and 47%."?  MAYBE IT IS
THE BEST THEY CAN DO GIVEN THEY "lack data on tropical forests" WELL, IF THEY
LACK DATA ON TROPICAL FORESTS THEN HOW DO THEY KNOW THOSE FORESTS HAVE
THREATENED PLANT SPECIES? IS IT NOT EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE THAT THE LIST OF
THREATENED SPECIES IS MASSIVELY OVERESTIMATED?  AFTER ALL, THEY LACK DATA.

Monitoring the environments most at risk would cost only US$100 per species per
year - $12.1 million in total - says Nigel Pitman of Duke University in Durham,
North Carolina, one of the report's authors.

"We may be on the edge of a mass extinction of plants," says Pitman.  "We'd like
to see a major investment for the world's threatened flora."

>>>     THEN AGAIN WE MAY NOT BE. WHY DON'T THEY WAIT FOR SOME DATA BEFORE THEY
PROCLAIM THE RAIN FORESTS DEAD.

The figures are startling, and probably in the right ballpark, says botanist
Michael Nee of the New York Botanical Garden.  Razing tropical forests for
farming is thought to be a prime cause of species annihilation.  "There are too
many people raping the landscape," says Nee.

>>>     "... proabably in the right ballpark ..." AND "... thought to be a prime
cause ..."  THIS PASSES FOR SCIENCE?

Red or dead

Species get put on the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List when they are
formally identified as being close to extinction.  But this excludes
unidentified or poorly studied plants.

>>>     WELL, ONE WOULD HOPE SO, PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE "unidentified".

"There are thousands of plants in the tropics that deserve red-listing but no
one's got around to checking if they qualify," says Pitman.

>>>     WELL THEN HOW THE HELL DOES THIS ..... KNOW THEY DESERVE TO BE
RED-LISTED? AFTER ALL, NO ONE CHECKED TO SEE IF THEY QUALIFY. AND THIS PASSES
FOR SCIENCE?

Working in tropical countries, Pitman and his colleague Peter Jorgensen found
that the number of species unique to each country is a rough guide to the number
that is threatened.

Ecuador, for example, has 4,000 species that are found nowhere else.  Nearly
3,500 are under threat, because they often grow in small regions, where a
landslide or fire can wipe them out.

>>>     HMMMM. SINCE LANDSLIDES AND FIRES HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF
YEARS, WITHOUT INTERVENTION FROM MAN, WHAT IS THE POINT? DO THEY WANT TO ADD
THEM TO THE LIST BECAUSE A LANDSLIDE OR FIRE MIGHT SOMEDAY OCCUR? WHY DON'T THEY
ADD ALL PLANT SPECIES TO THEIR LIST, AFTER ALL, IF A LARGE METEOR COLLIDED WITH
EARTH THERE COULD BE MASSIVE PLANT EXTINCTIONS.

To find the global proportion of plants under threat, Pitman and Jorgensen
pooled the numbers of species unique to each country.  The exact number is hard
to pin down because estimates of the number of plant species range between
310,000 and 422,000.

"It's an interesting attempt to connect the dots of our picture of global plant
extinctions," comments ecologist Hal Mooney of Stanford University in
California.  "The numbers they calculate should add to growing concern about
irreversible species loss."

>>>     THE ONLY THING THAT SEEMS TO BE IRREVERSIBLY LOST IS HEALTHY SCIENTIFIC
SKEPTICISM.

AND THIS PASSES FOR SCIENCE??

Chuck Dolci