this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
551 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

15322 readers
2795 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 22 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So they're called sea crits because we only have identified 5%, which is 1/20... aka the only way we find sea crits is by rolling a nat 20?

[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Homer Simpson Nerd Meme

(but that's not a criticism, I enjoyed your comment)

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 days ago (3 children)

if it's undiscovered, then how do they know what the percentage is?

[–] hoch@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's easy. Just write down all the sea critters and cross off the ones you don't know.

Have you met Gary yet?

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I love it when people just make jokes instead of answering a question

number of genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla—a designation above class—in each kingdom. That's a relatively easy task, since the number of new examples in these categories has leveled off in recent decades.

By contrast, the number of newly discovered species continues to rise sharply.

Using complex statistics, Worm and colleagues used the number of genera, families, and so on to predict Earth's number of unknown species, and their calculations gave them a number: 8.7 million.

An Issue of Statistics

Some experts called the research, published August 23 in the journal PLoS Biology, reasonable.

But Dan Bebber, an ecologist at the environmental group Earthwatch Institute, said the study relies on improper statistical methods.

The study team used a method called linear regression to calculate the number of Earth's species. But Bebber thinks this method is the wrong one for the data, and that the team should have used a technique known as ordinal regression.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago
[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago
[–] seven_phone@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Life in the sea is not dying because we catalogued it, it is dying because we are polluting its environment.

[–] catty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I think the more creatures we discover down there, the greater pace science will advance. Unless we do the homo sapien thing and kill them all.