Comment

Szewek@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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.

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

source

Sort:hotnew top

2deck@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Count em

source
- bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Catch em
  
  source
FooBarrington@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Something wrong with you

source
Gerudo@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Technically, they did say AMONG the most numerous.

source
- Szewek@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  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).
  
  source
jaybone@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Who invited this guy?

source
samus12345@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I don’t think anything that not an animal can be accurately called a creature.

source
- photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Then you would be wrong.
  
  source
  - samus12345@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source