>>2726992>That's all a bunch of nonsense and doesn't prove anything kek.See
>>2726985You sperging "that's FALSE" again for the 300th time. It isn't, it is objective fact. In fact in terms of scale based weather, climate, and also biological species distribution research, it gets harder and harder to measure the smaller in area you go. So the base mapping on most eastoid and .gov sites uses the most atrocious scale references, western orgs and institutions and other independent orgs, catalogs and journals use fine area mapping metrics, in which the species density *goes up* massively in any specific mountain range in CA, AZ, and NM. For example 1250 vascular plant species in less than 12 square miles, 2800 total species in the same county which might be 10,000 sq miles.
Every single catalog, including exceptionally out of date .gov ones and somewhat out of date ones like BONAP, reference more than 4,000 vascular plant species native to Arizona, and the mapping on them is garbage on most (like forecasting weather over a huge area), many of the western catalogs have begun using mapping areas of single mountain ranges and canyons and the species density is unbelievably higher, while the total abundance is about the same (which is also higher than the eastern US).
Trees do NOT equal total plant or animal diversity.
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas could be classed as megadiverse countries by themselves.
