2
$\begingroup$

I sometimes think about just how huge humans are in comparison to most animals. Even compared to a squirrel, which is really a pretty large organism in the grand scheme of things, humans are hulking giants.

I know humans are classified as megafauna, but we're neither the smallest nor the largest animals in that group.

How many animal species currently exist where the average adult individual is more massive than the average adult human?

Sources that cite other measures of size, like height or length, might be useful, but I would expect the focus to be on mass.

Obviously, new species are being discovered all the time, and we don't have exhaustive measurements for every species, but considering how few megafauna there are, I would expect a fairly accurate estimate to be possible.

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by AliceD, Remi.b, rg255, The Last Word, WYSIWYG Jul 2 '15 at 6:37

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the last sentence you rephrase your question "How many different species are actually larger than us", do you mean animal species (as specified in the title) or any species? In many non-animal species, the concept of individual might be hard to define. There's a fungi who covers an area of almost 9 square km in eastern Oregon. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jul 2 '15 at 0:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Depending on the exact formulation of your question I think that an exhaustive list might be very long. But I guess someone could come up with a rough estimate of the number of species. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jul 2 '15 at 0:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Remi.b I definitely mean animal species, I don't know why anyone would think I would suddenly be referring to fungi. I've clarified that. I'm referring to extant species. I assumed that mass would be the implicit measure for size, but I've clarified that as well. I didn't ask for a list anywhere, just a number. Listing them would be helpful, but not necessary. $\endgroup$ – DCShannon Jul 2 '15 at 16:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think this question is not broad at all, there have been plenty of serious estimates of species richness ~ size relationships: life.illinois.edu/ib/451/May%20(1988).pdf $\endgroup$ – Oreotrephes Jul 2 '15 at 18:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I agree the question is definitely no too broad. I first voted to close as unclear, it is now clear and I am voting to reopen. $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jul 4 '15 at 6:14

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.