Biodiversity

And
Conservation
vkSj
Aunty
F
B
 Sociobiologist “Edward Wilson”
Electrons
Protons Atom Molecule Macromolecules Cell Organelles Cell Tissue Organ
Neutrons

Organ System Organism Population Biotic Commumnity

+ Ecosystem Biome Biosphere
Abiotic Community
 Diversity
Genetic Diiversity Species Diversity Ecological Diversity
Genetic diversity
 RAUWOLFIA VOMITORIA

5.5
India has Lakhs different arieties
&
50,000 different 5trains of Rice
Mango has
000 varieties
Species Diversity
Ecological Diversity
Scandinavian Countries
Desert
Rainforest
Mangrove Forest
Coral Reefs
Wetlands
Estuary
Alpine Meadows
Sea
Today's Earth
In Less than 200 Years...
We can loose all the wealth
 Report of 2004

Total Discovered species 1.5 million<

20-50millions
 Global species
diversity is about 7
million

Robert May
+
Out of every 10 animals on this planet, 7 are insects.
FISHES AMPHIBIANS(FROG) REPTILES(SNAKE) MAMMALS(HUMAN)
< FUNGI

The number of fungi species in the world is more than the combined
total of species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles and mammals.
EstimatesDoNotGiveAnyFiguresForProkaryotes
Some species are not culturable in Lab
If we accept biochemical or molecular criteria for delineating species..........................

Staining
Their diversity alone might run into millions.
 India has
2.4 % of
world’s
land area.

But shares an impressive 8.1% global species diversity.

 B Bharat
BIरह megadiversity
1200 Birds

Nearly 45,000 species of plants and twice as many of

animals have been recorded from INDIA.
If we accept May’s global estimates, only 22 percent of the total species have been recorded so far.

Estimation- 1,00,000 plant species and more than 3,00,000 animal

species yet to be discovered and described.
Would we ever be able to complete
the inventory of the biological wealth
of our country?
NO....
Immense Trained Manpower and Time
 Character of Homo-sapiens
Human taxonomy is the classification of the human species (systematic name Homo sapiens, Latin: "wise man") within zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Homo, is designed to include both
anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans have been designated as subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated according to some from the direct ancestor,
Homo sapiens idaltu (with some other research instead classifying idaltu and current humans as belonging to the same subspecies[1][2][3]).

Since the introduction of systematic names in the 18th century, knowledge of human evolution has increased drastically, and a number of intermediate taxa have been proposed in the 20th and early
21st centuries. The most widely accepted taxonomy grouping takes the genus Homo as originating between two and three million years ago, divided into at least two species, archaic Homo erectus and
modern Homo sapiens, with about a dozen further suggestions for species without universal recognition.

The genus Homo is placed in the tribe Hominini alongside Pan (chimpanzees). The two genera are estimated to have diverged over an extended time of hybridization spanning roughly 10 to 6 million
years ago, with possible admixture as late as 4 million years ago. A subtribe of uncertain validity, grouping archaic "pre-human" or "para-human" species younger than the Homo-Pan split, is Australopithecina
(proposed in 1939).

A proposal by Wood and Richmond (2000) would introduce Hominina as a subtribe alongside Australopithecina, with Homo the only known genus within Hominina. Alternatively, following Cela-Conde and
Ayala (2003), the "pre-human" or "proto-human" genera of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and possibly Sahelanthropus, may be placed on equal footing alongside the genus Homo. An
even more radical view rejects the division of Pan and Homo as separate genera, which based on the Principle of Priority would imply the reclassification of chimpanzees as Homo paniscus (or similar).[4]

Prior to the current scientific classification of humans, philosophers and scientists made various attempts to classify humans. They offered definitions of the human being and schemes for classifying types
of humans. Biologists once classified races as subspecies, but today anthropologists reject the concept of race and view humanity as an interrelated genetic continuum. Taxonomy of the hominins
continues to evolve.[5][6]

Human taxonomy on one hand involves the placement of humans within the taxonomy of the hominids (great apes), and on the other the division of archaic and modern humans into species and, if
applicable, subspecies. Modern zoological taxonomy was developed by Carl Linnaeus during the 1730s to 1750s. He named the human species as Homo sapiens in 1758, as the only member species
of the genus Homo, divided into several subspecies corresponding to the great races. The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being". The systematic name Hominidae for the family of the
great apes was introduced by John Edward Gray (1825).[7] Gray also supplied Hominini as the name of the tribe including both chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Homo).

The discovery of the first extinct archaic human species from the fossil record dates to the mid 19th century: Homo neanderthalensis, classified in 1864. Since then, a number of other archaic species
have been named, but there is no universal consensus as to their exact number. After the discovery of H. neanderthalensis, which even if "archaic" is recognizable as clearly human, late 19th to early
20th century anthropology for a time was occupied with finding the supposedly "missing link" between Homo and Pan. The "Piltdown Man" hoax of 1912 was the fraudulent presentation of such a
transitional species. Since the mid-20th century, knowledge of the development of Hominini has become much more detailed, and taxonomical terminology has been altered a number of times to
reflect this.

The introduction of Australopithecus as a third genus, alongside Homo and Pan, in the tribe Hominini is due to Raymond Dart (1925). Australopithecina as a subtribe containing Australopithecus as well
as Paranthropus (Broom 1938) is a proposal by Gregory & Hellman (1939). More recently proposed additions to the Australopithecina subtribe include Ardipithecus (1995) and Kenyanthropus (2001).
The position of Sahelanthropus (2002) relative to Australopithecina within Hominini is unclear. Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) propose the recognition of Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus,
and Sahelanthropus (the latter incertae sedis) as separate genera.[8]

Other proposed genera, now mostly considered part of Homo, include: Pithecanthropus (Dubois, 1894), Protanthropus (Haeckel, 1895), Sinanthropus (Black, 1927), Cyphanthropus (Pycraft, 1928)
Africanthropus (Dreyer, 1935),[9] Telanthropus (Broom & Anderson 1949), Atlanthropus (Arambourg, 1954), Tchadanthropus (Coppens, 1965).

The genus Homo has been taken to originate some two million years ago, since the discovery of stone tools in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in the 1960s. Homo habilis (Leakey et al., 1964) would be the
first "human" species (member of genus Homo) by definition, its type specimen being the OH 7 fossils. However, the discovery of more fossils of this type has opened up the debate on the delineation
of H. habilis from Australopithecus.
Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Gray's tribe Hominini ("hominins") be designated as comprising all species after the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor by definition, to the inclusion of
Australopithecines and other possible pre-human or para-human species (such as Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus) not known in Gray's time.[13] In this suggestion, the new subtribe of Hominina was to be
designated as including the genus Homo exclusively, so that Hominini would have two subtribes, Australopithecina and Hominina, with the only known genus in Hominina being Homo. Orrorin (2001) has
been proposed as a possible ancestor of Hominina but not Australopithecina.[14]

Designations alternative to Hominina have been proposed: Australopithecinae (Gregory & Hellman 1939) and Preanthropinae (Cela-Conde & Altaba 2002);[15]

Species
Main article: Homo
At least a dozen species of Homo other than Homo sapiens have been proposed, with varying degrees of consensus. Homo erectus is widely recognized as the species directly ancestral to Homo sapiens
[citation needed] Most other proposed species are proposed as alternatively belonging to either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens as a subspecies. This concerns Homo ergaster in particular.[16][17] One
proposal divides Homo erectus into an African and an Asian variety; the African is Homo ergaster, and the Asian is Homo erectus sensu stricto. (Inclusion of Homo ergaster with Asian Homo erectus is
Homo erectus sensu lato.)[18] There appears to be a recent trend, with the availability of ever more difficult-to-classify fossils such as the Dmanisi skulls (2013) or Homo naledi fossils (2015) to subsume
all archaic varieties under Homo erectus.

Subspecies
Homo sapiens subspecies
Further information: Archaic human admixture with modern humans, Anatomically modern humans, and Race and genetics

1737 painting of Carl von Linné wearing a traditional Sami costume. Linnaeus is sometimes named as the lectotype of both H. sapiens and H. s. sapiens.[39]
The recognition or nonrecognition of subspecies of Homo sapiens has a complicated history. The rank of subspecies in zoology is introduced for convenience, and not by objective criteria, based on
pragmatic consideration of factors such as geographic isolation and sexual selection. The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies,
and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.

A subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two (including any that are extinct). Therefore, the designation of an extant
subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens only makes sense if at least one other subspecies is recognized. H. S. sapiens is attributed to "Linnaeus (1758)" by the taxonomic Principle of Coordination.[40] William
Stearn (1959) in a "passing remark"[41] argued that Linnaeus "must stand as the type of his Homo sapiens". Since Linnaeus describes H. s. europaeus as having blue/green (caerulus) eyes but himself had
brown eyes, he cannot have included himself in H. s. europaeus, Linnaeus would therefore have to be classified as H. sapiens sapiens, as not matching any of the descriptions of his five subspecies, and
so would stand as the lectotype both for H. sapiens, and for H. s. sapiens within his own subspecies nomenclature.[42]

During the 19th to mid-20th century, it was common practice to classify the major divisions of extant H. sapiens as subspecies, following Linnaeus (1758), who had recognized H. s. americanus, H. s.
europaeus, H. s. asiaticus and H. s. afer as grouping the native populations of the Americas, West Eurasia, East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively, besides H. s. ferus (for the "wild" form which
he identified with feral children) and two further "wild" forms for reported specimens now considered part of cryptozoology, H. s. monstrosus and H. s. troglodytes.[43]

There were variations and additions to the categories of Linnaeus, such as H. s. tasmanianus for the native population of Australia.[44] Bory de St. Vincent in his Essai sur l'Homme (1825) extended
Linné's "racial" categories to as many as fifteen: Leiotrichi ("smooth-haired"): japeticus (with subraces), arabicus, indicus, scythicus, sinicus, hyperboreus, neptunianus, australasicus, columbicus,
americanus, patagonicus; Oulotrichi ("crisp-haired"): aethiopicus, cafer, hottentotus, melaninus.[45] Similarly, Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1899) also had categories based on race, such as priscus,
spelaeus (etc.).
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was proposed by King (1864) as an alternative to Homo neanderthalensis.[46] There have been "taxonomic wars" over whether Neanderthals were a separate species
since their discovery in the 1860s. Pääbo (2014) frames this as a debate that is unresolvable in principle, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the case."[47] Louis Lartet (1869)
proposed Homo sapiens fossilis based on the Cro-Magnon fossils.

There are a number of proposals of extinct varieties of Homo sapiens made in the 20th century. Many of the original proposals were not using explicit trinomial nomenclature, even though they are still

cited as valid synonyms of H. sapiens by Wilson & Reeder (2005).[48] These include: Homo grimaldii (Lapouge, 1906), Homo aurignacensis hauseri (Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910), Notanthropus eurafricanus
(Sergi, 1911), Homo fossilis infrasp. proto-aethiopicus (Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915), Telanthropus capensis (Broom, 1917),[49] Homo wadjakensis (Dubois, 1921), Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis, Homo
sapiens grimaldiensis (Gregory, 1921), Homo drennani (Kleinschmidt, 1931),[50] Homo galilensis (Joleaud, 1931) = Paleanthropus palestinus (McCown & Keith, 1932).[51] Rightmire (1983) proposed Homo
sapiens rhodesiensis.[52]

By the 1980s, the practice of dividing extant populations of Homo sapiens into subspecies declined. An early authority explicitly avoiding the division of H. sapiens into subspecies was Grzimeks Tierleben,
published 1967–1972.[53] A late example of an academic authority proposing that the human racial groups should be considered taxonomical subspecies is John Baker (1974).[54] The trinomial nomenclature
Homo sapiens sapiens became popular for "modern humans" in the context of Neanderthals being considered a subspecies of H. sapiens in the second half of the 20th century. Derived from the convention,
widespread in the 1980s, of considering two subspecies, H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. sapiens, the explicit claim that "H. s. sapiens is the only extant human subspecies" appears in the early 1990s.[55]

Since the 2000s, the extinct Homo sapiens idaltu (White et al., 2003) has gained wide recognition as a subspecies of Homo sapiens, but even in this case there is a dissenting view arguing that "the skulls
may not be distinctive enough to warrant a new subspecies name".[56] H. s. neanderthalensis and H. s. rhodesiensis continue to be considered separate species by some authorities, but the 2010s discovery
of genetic evidence of archaic human admixture with modern humans has reopened the details of taxonomy of archaic humans.