Species on Earth - Manohar Bhat

 That is a new, estimated total number of Species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million (about 25 percent of the total) dwelling in the ocean depths.

Announced today by Census of Marine Life scientists, the figure is based on an innovative, validated analytical technique that dramatically narrows the range of previous estimates. Until now, the number of species on Earth was said to fall somewhere between 3 million and 100 million.

Furthermore, the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued.

Says lead author Camilo Mora of the University of Hawaii and Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada: "The question of how many species exist has intrigued scientists for centuries and the answer, coupled with research by others into species' distribution and abundance, is particularly important now because a host of human activities and influences are accelerating the rate of extinctions. Many species may vanish before we even know of their existence, of their unique niche and function in ecosystems, and of their potential contribution to improved human well-being."

"This work deduces the most basic number needed to describe our living biosphere," says co-author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University. "If we did not know -- even by an order of magnitude (1 million? 10 million? 100 million?) -- the number of people in a nation, how would we plan for the future?"

"It is the same with biodiversity. Humanity has committed itself to saving species from extinction, but until now we have had little real idea of even how many there are."

Dr. Worm notes that the recently-updated Red List issued by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature assessed 59,508 species, of which 19,625 are classified as threatened. This means the IUCN Red List, the most sophisticated ongoing study of its kind, monitors less than 1% of world species.

The research is published alongside a commentary by Lord Robert May of Oxford, past-president of the UK's Royal Society, who praises the researchers' "imaginative new approach."

"It is a remarkable testament to humanity's narcissism that we know the number of books in the US Library of Congress on 1 February 2011 was 22,194,656, but cannot tell you -- to within an order-of-magnitude -- how many distinct species of plants and animals we share our world with," Lord May writes.

"(W)e increasingly recognize that such knowledge is important for full understanding of the ecological and evolutionary processes which created, and which are struggling to maintain, the diverse biological riches we are heir to. Such biodiversity is much more than beauty and wonder, important though that is. It also underpins ecosystem services that -- although not counted in conventional GDP -- humanity is dependent upon."

Drawing conclusions from 253 years of taxonomy since Linnaeus

Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus created and published in 1758 the system still used to formally name and describe species. In the 253 years since, about 1.25 million species -- roughly 1 million on land and 250,000 in the oceans -- have been described and entered into central databases (roughly 700,000 more are thought to have been described but have yet to reach the central databases).

To now, the best approximation of Earth's species total was based on the educated guesses and opinions of experts, who variously pegged the figure in a range from 3 to 100 million -- wildly differing numbers questioned because there is no way to validate them.

Drs. Mora and Worm, together with Dalhousie colleagues Derek P. Tittensor, Sina Adl and Alastair G.B. Simpson, refined the estimated species total to 8.7 million by identifying numerical patterns within the taxonomic classification system (which groups forms of life in a pyramid-like hierarchy, ranked upwards from species to genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom and domain).

Analyzing the taxonomic clustering of the 1.2 million species today in the Catalogue of Life and the World Register of Marine Species, the researchers discovered reliable numerical relationships between the more complete higher taxonomic levels and the species level.

Says Dr. Adl: "We discovered that, using numbers from the higher taxonomic groups, we can predict the number of species. The approach accurately predicted the number of species in several well-studied groups such as mammals, fishes and birds, providing confidence in the method."

When applied to all five known eukaryote* kingdoms of life on Earth, the approach predicted:

~7.77 million species of animals (of which 953,434 have been described and cataloged)
~298,000 species of plants (of which 215,644 have been described and cataloged)
~611,000 species of fungi (moulds, mushrooms) (of which 43,271 have been described and cataloged)
~36,400 species of protozoa (single-cell organisms with animal-like behavior, eg. movement, of which 8,118 have been described and cataloged)
~27,500 species of chromista (including, eg. brown algae, diatoms, water moulds, of which 13,033 have been described and cataloged)

Total: 8.74 million eukaryote species on Earth.

(* Notes: Organisms in the eukaryote domain have cells containing complex structures enclosed within membranes. The study looked only at forms of life accorded, or potentially accorded, the status of "species" by scientists. Not included: certain micro-organisms and virus "types," for example, which could be highly numerous.)

Within the 8.74 million total is an estimated 2.2 million (plus or minus 180,000) marine species of all kinds, about 250,000 (11%) of which have been described and catalogued. When it formally concluded in October 2010, the Census of Marine Life offered a conservative estimate of 1 million+ species in the seas.

"Like astronomers, marine scientists are using sophisticated new tools and techniques to peer into places never seen before," says Australian Ian Poiner, Chair of the Census' Scientific Steering Committee. "During the 10-year Census, hundreds of marine explorers had the unique human experience and privilege of encountering and naming animals new to science. We may clearly enjoy the Age of Discovery for many years to come."

"The immense effort entering all known species in taxonomic databases such as the Catalogue of Life and the World Register of Marine Species makes our analysis possible," says co-author Derek Tittensor, who also works with Microsoft Research and the UN Environment Programme's World Conservation Monitoring Centre. "As these databases grow and improve, our method can be refined and updated to provide an even more precise estimate."

"We have only begun to uncover the tremendous variety of life around us," says co-author Alastair Simpson. "The richest environments for prospecting new species are thought to be coral reefs, seafloor mud and moist tropical soils. But smaller life forms are not well known anywhere. Some unknown species are living in our own backyards -- literally."

"Awaiting our discovery are a half million fungi and moulds whose relatives gave humanity bread and cheese," says Jesse Ausubel, Vice-President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and co-founder of the Census of Marine Life. "For species discovery, the 21st century may be a fungal century!"

Mr. Ausubel notes the enigma of why so much diversity exists, saying the answer may lie in the notions that nature fills every niche, and that rare species are poised to benefit from a change of conditions.

In his analysis, Lord May says the practical benefits of taxonomic discovery are many, citing the development in the 1970s of a new strain of rice based on a cross between conventional species and one discovered in the wild. The result: 30% more grain yield, followed by efforts ever since to protect all wild varieties of rice, "which obviously can only be done if we have the appropriate taxonomic knowledge."

"Given the looming problems of feeding a still-growing world population, the potential benefits of ramping up such exploration are clear."

Based on current costs and requirements, the study suggests that describing all remaining species using traditional approaches could require up to 1,200 years of work by more than 300,000 taxonomists at an approximate cost of $US 364 billion. Fortunately, new techniques such as DNA barcoding are radically reducing the cost and time involved in new species identification.

Concludes Dr. Mora: "With the clock of extinction now ticking faster for many species, I believe speeding the inventory of Earth's species merits high scientific and societal priority. Renewed interest in further exploration and taxonomy could allow us to fully answer this most basic question: What lives on Earth?"

Courtesy: Census of Marine Life

Vena, Veda, Venus - By Manohar Bhat

 Introduction

The name Venus is from the Roman goddess of natural productivity and also of love and beauty. The Greeks called this planet Aphrodite and also Eosphoros or the ‘bringer of light’ when it appeared as a morning star, and Hesperos when it appeared as the evening star. It is believed that the Greeks first did not know that the two stars were the same but by the time of the Pythagoreans this identity was known and Plato writes, “The morning and evening star which are one and the same belong to Aphrodite.” The Roman Venus derived her characteristics from the Greek Aphrodite which in turn appears to have been based on the Babylonian Ishtar. In Greek legend Aphrodite was taken to have been born in Kupris or Cyprus; Kupris, a feminine deity, was derived from the masculine Kupros.

It was suggested by Tilak1 that an early Vedic name for Venus derived was Vena. Tilak also suggested that Kupros may be derived from the later Indian name for the planet, Śukra, who is considered male. The mention of Vena is to be found in Rigveda 10.123 in a hymn dedicated to Vena which is described as being born of the sun.

ayaṃ venaścodayatpṛśnigarbhā jyotirjarāyū rajaso vimāne ।

imamapāṃ saṃgame sūryasya śiśuṃ na viprā matibhī rihanti ॥1॥ (RV 10.123.1)

This Vena impels them who are in the womb of the variegated one; the membrane of light measures out the sky. At the contacts of the waters and the sun the wise kiss him as an infant.

Yaska’s book on etymology, called Nirukta, 2 explains the word Vena as being derived from the root ven, meaning “to long for”. This hymn later calls Vena explicitly as the “son of the sun.”

Venus, in Indian literature, has many attested names including Bhrgu, Kavya or Kavi Usanas, and Śukra. RV 10.123 has Vena of the Bhrigus as the seer and Vena is also the deity of the hymn. This clearly expresses the connection between Bhrgu and Vena. There is mention of śukra cups in a ritual that points to its astronomical origin and its being a planet that waxes and wanes.3 Śukra is mentioned in RV 3.32.2, 4.46.4, TS3.1.6.3.; YV 7.12. Vena is mentioned again in YV 7.16. Tilak points out that Kātyāyana in his Śrauta Sūtra 9.6.11-13 says that a Śukra cup be taken while reciting the Śukra or Vena hymns. This points to a memory of the two words Vena and Śukra meaning the same thing. Tilak also points out that the Latin Venus is considered by linguists to be cognate with the Sanskrit van, “to love”.

Uśanas or Kavi, his patronymic, have several hymns in the Rigveda. Later Indian literature does not comment on the identity of Vena and Venus.

From the point of view of history of astronomy, the identity Vena=Venus suggests that the Romans had knowledge of Venus before their interaction with the Greeks. We should then consider the Greek astronomical myths as just one of the many system of such myths and not a precursor to those of other European tribes. Such a view is in general agreement with the astronomical interpretation of ancient myths by de Santillana and von Dechend.4

Tilak’s view on the identity of Vena and Venus was rejected by Whitney.5 On the other hand, Shukla, 6 in a recent survey, accepts this identity. In this paper, we review the question in the light of the new discoveries related to Indian astronomy.

On the names of Venus

In later Indian mythology (e.g. Matsya Purāṇa 10.3-35), Vena is described as a wicked king.7 This ascribed wickedness echoes the affiliation of Venus with the asuras. The notion of asura (demon or titan) basically defines the dual to the gods.8 This duality is mirrored in other dichotomies such as spiritual against material; mental against physical; higher against lower; bright against dark. Interestingly, Vena’s son was one Pṛthu, a righteous king who commanded the earth to fulfill the needs of all creatures; it is due to this act that the earth is called Pṛthivī. This clearly points to the astronomical nature of the story and an astronomical basis of Vena.

Vena is called Gandharva in RV 10.123.7. Although in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 5.1.4.8, gandharvas are said to be 27 in number, an apparent reference to their identity as the nakṣatras, constellations that the moon is conjoined with in its orbit, it is believed that originally there was only one Gandharva, 9 who is Venus. Gandharva is the lover who is married to the Apsaras (water-nymph). This allusion is to love and to residence in the sea of heavens.

Vena, like Aphrodite, is associated with the waters or with the sea, which is the sea of heaven, from which he is born (RV10.123.2). Vena arises like a drop (drapsa) from the ocean.

Aitreya Brāhmaṇa 3.34 speaks of the birth of planets from the “seed” of Prajāpati, the “year” Śatapatha Br. 3.2.2.4; 5.2.1.2; 10.4.2.1, 2). First, arises āditya, the sun; this is followed by Bhṛgu, Venus; then comes Bṛhaspati, Jupiter. It is interesting that mythology celebrates planets as being born from each other. Indian myths remember Mars as the son of the earth, Mercury as the son of the moon, and Saturn as the son of the sun.

Elsewhere, the story is recounted how Venus in the form of Kavya Usanas (Mahabharata 12.278.16) deprived Kubera of his wealth. Kubera complained to Siva who punished Usanas by swallowing him. Eventually, he let Usanas come out of his semen passage which is why he was now called Śukra, “shining”. For this reason, Venus is also called the son of Siva or that of the sun.

One might wonder whether there exist any “astronomical” reasons for associating Venus with the asuras. Ancient legends from different civilizations, ranging from Roman to Samoan, refer to the horns of Venus, which have been taken to represent a crescent. Pliny in his Naturalis Historia (2, 37) represents Venus as a human figure with two horns. It has beendiscovered10 that Astarte, the Assyrian Venus, was shown as bearing a staff tipped with a crescent. It is generally accepted that, under favourable conditions, it is possible to see the crescent form of Venus with the unaided eye. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the “horns”, together with the apparent rebirth after each disappearance against the disk of the sun, led to the myths that Śukra belonged to the party of the asuras and he possessed the secret of immortality. The immortality of Vena, likewise, is mentioned in RV 10.123.4, whereas Gandharva, he knows immortal names; and in Atharvaveda 2.1.1 where it is claimed that Vena sees the supreme secret which leads to immortality (AV 2.1.5).

The image of a horned woman is so dissonant, that it represents the fusion of the images of the asura (demon) and the apsaras (water nymph). In other words, of the two notions that we see in the Vena hymn of the Rigveda only that of the lovely goddess is encountered in west Asia, Greece, and Rome. Aphrodite is the water nymph who rises from the foam of the sea of the heaven quite like the apsaras who longs for Vena.

Planets in the third millenium B.C.E.
We have already discussed elsewhere11 the reasons why the famous myth about the three steps of Viṣṇu may represent the knowledge of the synodic and/or sidereal period of Mercury toward the end of the third millennium B.C.E. We have also shown elsewhere that the organization of the Vedic books represents an astronomical code.12 It has been argued there that this code, which implies a knowledge of the planets, must go back to at least the third millennium B.C.E.

The early attitude of the historians of astronomy was that such knowledge is perhaps too early. But it is known that the Babylonians observed Venus in the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. References to Venus come also from the even earlier 3000 B.C.E. evidence at Uruk in Sumer.13 Known by the Sumerians as Inanna, Venus is represented there as an eight-pointed star. Later Mesopotamia also represents Ishtar (Venus) by an eight-pointed star. It has been suggested that this indicates a knowledge of the eight-year cycle of Venus.

It is believed by Greek scholars14 that “In Greek astronomy as known to Plato very few planetary observations had been made, and this is consistent with the comparatively late recognition of the planets as such and the fact, for example, that we are told nothing of the periods assigned to them in the Philolaic system [fifth century B.C.E.]; Eudoxus [390-337 B.C.E.] must have been one of the ‘few men’ to study them, but Plato’s words support the idea that the data Eudoxus relied on to construct his system came from outside Greece (almost certainly from Babylonian astronomy.)”

Simplicius (6th century C.E.) attributes to Eudoxus knowledge of the sidereal and the synodic periods of the planets.15The sidereal periods for Mercury and Venus are each taken to be one year, the other periods are approximately correct in whole years; the synodic periods are generally more accurate excepting that for Mars it is taken to be 260 days rather than the correct 780 days.

The astronomical system of Eudoxus was based on assigning four spheres to each planet, the moon was assigned three spheres; these spheres moved in ingenious ways to approximate the observed motions. In this model the moon moves at a constant speed round the ecliptic although it had been known for a long time that the speed actually varies. In other words, the system of Eudoxus did not have the capability to explain what was known.

I think the inference that correct sidereal periods for Mercury and Venus must have been obtained only after Eudoxus is not warranted by this evidence. Even if one were persuaded to ignore the evidence from India, it is quite clear from the tablets that have been found in the third-millennium Sumer and the second-millennium B.C.E. Babylon that there was a tradition of observing the planets there. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that in the ancient world trade often carried ideas across lands but astronomical details were, in most likelihood, worked out afresh in each nation. The Greek evidence then only gives us the stages in the development of astronomy there, but its many details were known earlier in Mesopotamia, India, and other civilizations.

Mercury and Venus myths
Mercury and Venus, being inner planets, are found always close to the sun. Hermes as Mercury is the messenger of the gods and the inventor of writing whereas Venus is the goddess of love.

In India, the dichotomy is more symmetric: Budha (Mercury) is Viṣṇu, the younger brother of Indra, the great god, the sun who is also later represented by Siva; whereas Śukra (Venus) is the teacher of the asuras (demons).

Śukra knows the secret of immortality; this presumably has reference to the fact that Venus emerges again after being swallowed by the sun. In the Saivite glosses of this story Śukra is swallowed up by Siva and later on expelled as semen; this is a play on the etymology of Śukra as “bright.”

It is noteworthy that the Siva/Viṣṇu split can be best understood in the interiorization of the astronomical frame. Siva now represents the “sun” of consciousness and Viṣṇu represents the cognitive category of intelligence which ultimately draws its “light” from the sun; this explains the etymology of budha as intelligence.

Conclusions

The names for the planets in the ancient civilizations are generally different. Their difference suggests that the planets were known in various civilizations before trade and migrations brought unifying impulses and common terminology. The fact that RV 10.123 explicitly calls Vena as the son of the sun makes it clear that it could only be Mercury or Venus (only Venus if we the recall that moon. Its association with Śukra in the Katyayana Srauta Sutra makes it certain that it is Venus and not Mercury; later Puranic mythology also remembers Venus as the son of the sun/Siva.

So is the commonality between Vena in India and Venus in Rome an ancient memory? We have seen that the Rigveda describes two aspects of Venus: one, as Gandharva who is the patron of singing and the arts; and the other, who is the son of the sun and an asura. These conceptions, together with the meaning of Vena as “longing” and “love”, lead to both the later mythologies to be found in India as well as in west Asia. If we assume that the notion of Aphrodite was borrowed by the Greeks from western Asia, as is generally accepted, then this notion of Venus as a goddess may have been a late innovation, but it was an innovation based on old ideas. This, in turn, implies that Freya, the Norse goddess of love and beauty, must be derived from Aphrodite and Venus, and not the original Vena. Venus for the name of the planet is related to Vena, but its mythology is to be traced to western Asia.

The other possibility is that Venus as a goddess is derived most directly from Surya, the sun-maiden, celebrated in the Rigveda 10.85 or the Atharvaveda 24.1-2, who is really Venus and not a feminine representation of the sun.

Courtesy: indictoday

Venture Capital

 

Venture Capital

Harvard Business School professor Georges Doriot is generally considered the "Father of Venture Capital"

Venture capital (VC) is a method of private equity and it is a type of financing that investors provide to startup companies and small businesses that are looking to have long-term growth. Venture capital generally comes from prosperous investors, investment banks, and any other financial institutions. However, it does not always take a monetary form, it can also be provided in the form of technical or managerial experts. Venture capital is naturally allocated to small companies with exceptional growth potential, or to companies that have grown quickly and appear poised to continue to expand. The main downside is that the investors usually get equity in the company, and, thus, a say in company decisions.

According to some estimates, funding levels during that period peaked. But the promised returns did not materialize as several publicly listed Internet companies with high valuations crashed and burned their way to bankruptcy.

For small businesses, or for up-and-coming businesses in emerging industries, venture capital is generally provided by high net worth individuals (HNWIs) – also often known as ‘Angel Investors’ – and venture capital firms. The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) is an organization composed of hundreds of venture capital firms that offer to fund innovative enterprises.

 

The first step for any business looking for venture capital is to submit a business plan, either to a venture capital firm or to an angel investor. If they interested in the proposal, then they must perform due diligence, which includes a thorough investigation of the company's business model, products, management and operating history and other things.

Once due diligence has been completed, they will pledge an investment of capital in exchange for equity in the company. These funds may be provided all at once, but sometime the capital is provided in step-by-step. After the investment they takes an active role in the funded company, advising and monitoring its progress before releasing additional funds.

The investor exits the company after a period of time, may be four to six years after the initial investment, by initiating a merger, acquisition, or initial public offering (IPO).

BASICS OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY - Nischl R B

 

BASICS OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Supply and demand form the most fundamental concepts of economics. Whether you are an academic, farmer, pharmaceutical manufacturer, or simply a consumer, the basic premise of supply and demand equilibrium is integrated into your daily actions. Only after understanding the basics of these models can the more complicated aspects of economics be mastered.

DEMAND: Although most explanations typically focus on explaining the concept of supply first, understanding demand is more intuitive for many, and thus helps with subsequent descriptions.

 As the price of a good increase, the demand for the product will—except for a few obscure situations—decrease. For purposes of our discussion, let's assume the product in question is a television set. If TVs are sold for the cheap price of Rs.5 each, then a large number of consumers will purchase them at a high frequency. Most people would even buy more TVs than they need, putting one in every room and perhaps even some in storage.

Essentially, because everyone can easily afford a TV, the demand for these products will remain high. On the other hand, if the price of a television set is Rs.50,000, this gadget will be a rare consumer product as only the wealthy will be able to afford the purchase. While most people would still like to buy TVs, at that price, demand for them would be extremely low.

Of course, the above examples take place in a vacuum. A pure example of a demand model assumes several conditions. First, product differentiation does not exist—there is only one type of product sold at a single price to every consumer. Second, in this closed scenario, the item in question is a basic want and not an essential human necessity such as food (although having a TV provides a definite level of utility, it is not an absolute requirement). Third, the good does not have a substitute and consumers expect prices to remain stable into the future.

SUPPLY: The supply curve functions in a similar fashion, but it considers the relationship between the price and available supply of an item from the perspective of the producer rather than the consumer.

When prices of a product increase, producers are willing to manufacture more of the product to realize greater profits. Likewise, falling prices depress production as producers may not be able to cover their input costs upon selling the final good. Going back to the example of the television set, if the input costs to produce a TV are set at Rs.50 plus the variable cost of labor, production would be highly unprofitable when the selling price of the TV drops below the Rs.50 mark.

On the other hand, when prices are higher, producers are encouraged to increase their levels of activity to reap more benefit. For example, if television prices are Rs.1,000, manufacturers can focus on producing television sets in addition to other possible ventures. Keeping all variables the same but increasing the selling price of the TV to Rs.50,000 would benefit the producers and provide the incentive to build more TVs. The behavior to seek maximum amounts of profits forces the supply curve to be upward sloping. (See: Understanding Supply-Side Economics.)

An underlying assumption of the theory lies in the producer taking on the role of a price taker. Rather than dictating prices of the product, this input is determined by the market and suppliers only face the decision of how much to actually produce, given the market price. Similar to the demand curve, optimal scenarios are not always the case, such as in monopolistic markets.