|WikiProject Biology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Ecology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Removed dubious claims
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.
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)
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)
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)
- Thanks Lunaticcloud. I have updated the map so that it highlights Bolivia as well. Jodamn 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to the list, the US IS a megadiverse country. User:Jumacdon
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)
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)
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)
Australia is not a megadiverse since it doesn not fit in the criteria to be in. It must have 19 species per square kilometer.
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.
Comments re missing countries
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  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)
List of countries (order)
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?
Number of Countries
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)
- Kenya is not cited by the Australian article, so it's 17 countries. --Pixeltoo (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Expansion on lines of LMMC
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)
List made by naive student
How come Argentina is not in the list? That country boast 3 million sq km and has all the climates, from subtropical to antartic. This list must have been made by an american student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208141905/http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/theme-reports/biodiversity/biodiversity01-3.html to http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/theme-reports/biodiversity/biodiversity01-3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.