 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article would be much more elucidative if it included the biotic (like the spatial heterogeneity theory, competition theory, predation theory and pollinator theory) and abiotic theories (productivity theory, area theory, Rapoport rule) that try to explain species richness. Thank you very much.
Nonsense edit
I deleted the words "hello II darwin" as the words looks like nonsense. Shrimp wong 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Article is awful edit
This article is impenetrable to a reader who knows little about biology, and personally, it looks like it could use some wikifying. Waelwulf 10:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Back to the drawing board edit
An excellent example of an article that should have stayed in development before being posted: an abomination! 7 March 2007. ~Timios
Species richness is a different thing altogether than species diversity. Species diversity should not be redirected to species richness. Species richness is a measurement used to calculate diversity, but species evenness must also be taken into account. I suggest that a new article be written on species diversity as a whole. -seafoamshame
Recommendation edit
The first and second paragraphs fail to give reader an overall understanding of the subject. I request someone have knowledge about it to make some adjustment. --TiMkOk (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
New version edit
The article has been entirely rewritten. I hope you like the new version. Cricetus (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)