| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Megadiverse countries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It says there are 17 countries, but the map clearly highlights more than 17 countries. Or am I seeing things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.209.247 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to remove some very dubious claims about India and the Phillippines. Both countries, while definitely in the megadiverse list, are not in the top 5. Additionally it was stated that India had 60-70% of the diversity in the world which is clearly ridiculous! It should've stated that all 18 countries COMBINED have 60-70% of the diversity in the world.
Iran is not highlighted on the map.
Why does the map not highlight the United States? and why does it highlight Taiwan (Republic of China) which has a disputed status over whether it is independent from the People's Republic? SCHZMO ✍ 20:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that there are 17 megadiverse countries, but only 16 are listed. Is the United States missing from this list? Jodamn 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bolivia is the 17th megadiverse country, why is not highlighted in the map nor included on the list? Additionally, the United States is not a megadiverse country. Lunaticcloud 14:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible that Costa Rica (by any measure one of the most ecologically diverse countries in the world, despite its small size) is not listed here? Moreover, I notice that it was one of the original signatories of the "like-minded megadiverse countries" group. - Potosino 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Costa Rica does not have to be in the list. The source only cites 17 countries, Costa Rica is noy in the list. Costa Rica, Panama, Argentina, Vietnam and other countries have high level of biological diversity but not as high as the megadiverse countries. --SonCR (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading the World Conservation Monitoring Centre report, it specifically named all 17 countries as megadiverse, so there is no room for ambiguity. I'm very sure countries like Costa Rica, Kenya, Vietnam and others certainly rank high in biodiversity, but we are quoting the actual source (the UNEP report) afterall, so we should follow it. The so-called Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries Group is not affiliated with the UNEP organization anyway, and so it's a good alternative source to have, kind of like when we're talking about global GDP stats using either World Bank or CIA Factbook data. Haleth (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page on Australia: Flora and fauna states that Australia is a megadiverse country. Which of these two pages is incorrect? FienX 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is not a megadiverse since it doesn not fit in the criteria to be in. It must have 19 species per square kilometer.
Who says it isn't? Statistics from the UNEP report says that it is. Haleth (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the Spanish Wikipedia says that they are 18 megadiverse countries including Bolivia and Costa Rica and excluding the USA. That makes more sense to me, I doubt that the USA has more biodiversity than Costa Rica despite it's much smaller. Can someone tell me what's the correct one? Also I'm not sure if Australia is a megadiverse country although it should be.
In the Catalan Wikipedia it shows the map with the correct countries.
There are two different sources that identify some of the most megadiverse countries in the world. One is the UNEP report, the other one is the so-called Like-Minded Megadiverse Country Group conference in Cancun. I checked the Catalan Wikipedia entry, it only cites the latter.
I notice the various remarks about other highly diverse tropical countries not being on the list. If you follow the first reference you can read a description of the criteria for megadiversity. It is not merely enough to have a high number of species in a country but also that the species represented are mostly endemic (i.e. they are not found in other countries). This tends to favour larger countries and islands because they are probably going to have more endemic species as a function of geography. On a related note there is a very interesting article in The Economist [1] regarding the issue of "species inflation" where conservationists are possibly fragmenting species to make taxonomic groups appear more rare or unique. This is likely to have a strong influence on perceptions of biodiversity especially in developed countries where there are more conservation groups. Edwin s 03:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current list of countries is alphabetical and there is no indication which countries are more mega diverse than others (top 10, etc,).
If the information is available, could someone please add ranking or sort the list in a more meaningful way?
It says in the introduction that there are 17 megadiverse countries and and the following section it then lists 18 countries. I assume that the 17 should be 18 but I don't wanna make any changes that I'm not 100% sure of. Fatla00 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that not much info is available on the 18 megadivere countries but that the Like Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC) has extensive information on various websites. That information should be incorporated here and the article could be either expanded on those lines, or a seperate article created for the LMMC. Enviropearson (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How come Argentina is not in the list? That country boast 3 million sq km and has all the climates, from subtropical to antartic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Megadiverse countries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tanzania is also mega diverse country 196.249.98.57 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The linked source says India has "45000" vascular plant species, not "15000". Did someone make a mistake copying the text? There's obviously a substantial difference. 2A02:3102:AD00:580:5C69:1E6E:EC7B:A55 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the article doesn't explicitly touch on the history of the term. From some quick preliminary research, it appears as though the term was coined right around the publication by Conservation International, but this is not adequately conveyed in the article. A good source would be necessary to claim that they invented the term, however. ZLima12 (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
