>It matters because we don't know so much. A species deemed "inessential" to ecological importance might very well turn out to be critical for unforeseen, even

>It matters because we don't know so much. A species deemed "inessential" to ecological importance might very well turn out to be critical for unforeseen, even unforeseeable reasons Sure, but that's an argument for "evolution being so complex and long process, we don't know much about which species is essential or not". Not for the original claim "After billions of years how many species are not of ecological importance? Maybe some primates?" which seems to imply that all/most specific are of ecological importance just because they're old, except maybe some more recent ones like primates.