I am grateful that you went to the considerable effort of providing so much information in such a readable form, but I hope you will consider a few suggestions for your next edition. I think you should point out that this implies that biodiversity can be contained in an individual , not just in a population . This is a revolutionary concept, because most people say that conserving biodiversity is synonymous with conserving populations and species, and that as long as the populations and species remain, we haven't lost any biodiversity. You should also point out that the probability is that any mutation begins with a single individual . This sentence is ambiguous, and if you mean that biodiversity can be increased only by increasing the number of species, this is wrong.
Biodiversity is basically genetic diversity.
For example, a butterfly and a tree are far more diverse than two species of butterfly. Thus, if we place a value on biodiversity, we should value the former more than the latter. You seem to be saying that there is more biodiversity today than there was in the past. We may have more species of arthropods now, but we have far less bio- diversity . In biology and conservation, we care about both, but the former is probably the more important.