After reading this article. I'm thinking of starting a new category called "Circular Logic".

The authors of the theory suggest that rich biodiversity spawns biodiversity.

But, I guess if you point out yourself that it's circular logic, then it's okay:

He also stressed that a rich biodiversity could not entirely explain a rich biodiversity because, of course, you had to start somewhere.

"They are saying that if you have biodiversity it will create more biodiversity - I can buy that. But it still doesn't explain the initial step: how do you get more biodiversity in the first place?"

--------