Interesting Question

My son asked and interesting question yesterday..
How long before something can be considered a native. Yams are not native to the south pacific but have been growing there at least four thousand years. Iganunas rafted to several carribean islands in the last ten years thanks to hurricanes.. all the trees in Illinios have came in the last ten thousand years.. many much more recently. Armidillos are now expanding into Kentucky.. replacing the native Armidillo that died out ten thousand years ago. Darwin's finches are clearly native to galapogos islands.. but orginally a finches got lost and landed there as invaders.

You are correct that the term native is subject to interpretation.

The common accepted definition of North America native plants are those plants in a particular area that were growing naturally in that area prior to European Colonization, and prior to plants being introduced from distant places.

Other countries with other histories would need a different definition.

Can you do European Ethnic cuisine without Potatos or other ingredients from the continent 'America'. Also Indian, thai, etc. Arabs drink Yerba Mate'. Native plants have a much better chance of being defined than does native cuisine.

First there was America, then North America. South America is a retronym as are silent movies and black and white TV.

A plant that is not native to this continent will not ever be native, no matter how long it's been here, because it's not native to this continent. The plant may spread rampantly, naturalise(for instance, Queen Anne's Lace), but it still is not native. This isn't a value judgement at all!

Its not a value judgement but its a recognition that ecology is in a constant state of flux. Plant ecoysystems change with climate, age, disturbance et al. Plants can be moved from one ecosystem to another through natural means like hurricaines and migrating animals.

The current ecosystem in this area has developed only in the last 10,000 years. The plants that existed prior to last glacial episode were probably different to the ones that we consider native today.

Someone (though it would be silly) could define a native plant as those that existed prior to the last glaciers. Under that definition, post glacial flora would be considered introduced and naturalized, rather than native.

My point is the definition of native does rely on a time frame... After the next cycle of climate change, the native plants could be redefined again. Though, I agree that the commonly accepted definition makes the most sense for our current time frame.

How does Europe define native vegetation? It would be interesting to know.

This message was edited Jun 20, 2006 10:28 AM

I don't have anything to add, but I am enjoying reading.

Joepyeweed

Exactly!

The Europeans accept the end of the last ice age as the starting point for our current native plants and animals too, otherwise the UK would have to consider animals like the Hyena and Rhino as native.

This message was edited Jun 20, 2006 3:39 PM

While I do see and understand the need to say.. natural cause and manmade cuases.. I think it shows the great hubris of humans to say.. natural introduction.. and introductions by man. Homo Sapien Sapien, The Wise Man, The Naked Ape.. to that one could add The Scatter.

Its remarkable the number of plants and animal that have jumped on the back of Man as a survival tatic. The Horse, The Cow, The Dawn Red Wood, Franklin Tree and countless others have survived only becuase of having in their genetic makeup something of use to man.

Now before I upset anyone, I am not one to planted invasive exotics in my yard.. From a purely economic point of view.. native plants make much more sense. My wife, son, and I have had heated debates about these subjects.. mainly becuase my wife believes in the 'Selfish Gene' theories of the Neo-Darwinists, I am a believer in Puntucated Equalibrium.. and my son well he should be a lawyer.. he loves to poke holes in anything said.

I don't think the introduction by man.. are in the long run, as destructive and nasty as some claim.. Nature always finds a way to balance the books. (Again, I am not saying one should plant invasives.. willy nilly.. just that in the end.. Nature will balance the books.. biodiversity will be restored.. and Humans.. will most likely just be an exhibit in some Uberroach, Musuem of Natural History)





This message was edited Jun 20, 2006 11:08 AM

By value judgement I meant I wasn't placing more or less value on the non-native.

But nothing anyone can do is going to make QAL native to this continent. Even the passage of time is not going to make a non-native plant native.

For the US, I think the common standard was plants existing on the continent before the arrival of Europeans, who brought a lot of stuff with them, intentionally and un.

This is how I think of it. I was born in Kentucky. I live in Illinois, and have for almost 40 years. I'm a native of Kentucky. I could live here for another 40 years, and I'm still not a native of Illinois.

And your comment about being native to Kentucky is confusing, considering that your offspring (if and when you have any) will be native to Illinois?. ;- )

This message was edited Jun 20, 2006 3:58 PM

Humans.. Homo Sapien Sapien.. are only native of Africa.. all non african homoniods have been wiped out by us or climate change. Humans.. are THE ORGINAL INVASIVE SPECIES.

I had never thought of myself as invasive, but I guess that is true. We sure do take over wherever we want to.

Again, I am not talking about the short term effects.. only the long term ones greater then five thousand years from now. As for the Great Plains, and Southeastern Woodlands.. they are babies.. less then 10 thousand years old.

As someone who is fighting a never ending battle with Amur Honeysuckle.. yes I can it is nasty and invasive.. all I am saying is that in the end Nature balances that books.. Kudzu.. and I hate the stuff.. grows a foot a day.. in time.. long after we are gone.. Nature will balance the books and something will slip into the niche that kudzu has created.
Kudzu, Jap Honeysuckle, Tree of Heaven, and Mimosa are plants that make me cringe.. if I have the power to snap my fingers and drive them all back across the seas I would.

Evolution is driven by change.. long periods of stasis followed by rapid change to reach a new equalibrium.. in the end Nature balances the books.. always has always will.

5,000 years from now 10,000 years from now.. Georgia Kudzu Beetle will keep it in check.. Nature hates a vacumn.. and god has a fondness for beetles.

And yes I have seen the South, I am from the south.. where Kudzu will eat you car if you leave it sitting a couple weeks.

This message was edited Jun 20, 2006 5:40 PM

I'm finding this thread very interesting, as there is a certain line running through it with which I concur. If we are allowed to call ourselves native to North American, why not the plants that came with us? I don't believe you can find any group of people who have left home for distant shores and not taken food plants and flowering plants with them. I am quite sure somewhere deep in my bones that my ancestress who crossed to the New World in 1636 carried somewhere on her person seeds of a favorite flower. I am the "curator," if you will, of a group of plants that have that history, presented to me in partial form by the daughter of the former owner of our farm. Some of the roses here were carried from England to Connecticutt and on to here over the span of the last 350 years. I don't dispute the stated definition of native, nor the time line, but I do feel that we are as alien and invasive as our plants. I also feel that there are plants that should never have found their way here, but as they are here, they will in time find themselves cornered.

As a farmer, every grass that I grow with the exception of timothy, is an alien. The oats that we use as a cover crop, the millet that we raise as a sod buster and late summer pasture, orchard grass, reed canary (though there is a native strain of this), the clovers, fescues, blue grass all are alien.

We poison multiflora roses, brush hog honeysuckles, battle bull thistles and velvet leaf, rip out the purple loosestrife that the State of New York gifted us in the gravel hauled in for road improvement. I leave the daisies and Queen Anne's Lace, neither of which has much of a hold in ground regularly mowed or tilled. the goldenrod more than takes care of it when the land is allowed to go wild. When the land goes undisturbed, the natives often reassert themselves, an interesting commentary on how little our meddling actually has effect.

Just a note, there is one group of people who do claim to be native to North American. I was informed by a woman who is a member of the Seneca Nation that a series of genetic tests have found no connections between the Senecas and any other group. I haven't researched this claim, but I find myself wanting to believe her.

Here in southern Oregon we have the Siskiyou Mountains which harbor more than 200 species of plants that are endemics. I like the word 'endemic' because it refers to something that occurs NO WHERE ELSE. So here in our little corner of the world, we can truly say that we have 'native' plants.

Hey siskiyou, where are your photos! I love endemic species and they are truly native.

Dode has decided against reproducing... tee he, she doesn't like flesh loafs which I find rather odd in that she is so darn good with kids.

Homo sapien is Homo sapien is Homo sapien. The Native Americans who were present on the continent of North America prior to European settlement were Homo sapiens. Hence, Homo sapiens were not an alien species here. The plants the Europeans brought with them were an alien species. Many of the plants they brought with them were not invasive and many I believe substantially improved our quality of life such as wheat, oats, and corn. However, we Homo sapiens have been introducing species at an unparalleled rate and many of these introductions are for sentimental or ornamental value (don't forget the introductions by our own government to control erosion) and some are doing anything but improving our standard of life.

Sorry, Equilibrium, but I must be one of the few people on this planet sans a digital camera. But I'm workin' on it!
And, sadly, there really aren't any sites on the 'net that delve into these endemic plants in any detail. But, trust me, the plants are there!

I believe you. I love photos though. Any websites from any native plant societies in your area that you could provide links to that might have photos of these little pretties for us until you get your hands on a digital camera?

Hey, Equilibrium and all who are interested, follow this link:

http://www.npsoregon.org/

Click on 'What's New' and then click on Photo Gallery. I just discovered this gallery but have been aware of the Native Plant Society of Oregon for years.
You will need to register to view the pics full size. Many of the plants pictured do grow here in the Siskiyous. Enjoy!

Oh oh oh! So far I found the photo to Xerophyllum tenax. Going back for more images right now!

Just spotted the Campanula scoulerii- very nice. The Darlingtonia californica I tried to grow here. I was successful but meeting its cultural requirements was a real bear!

I'd love to know which Sarcodes those are. I'm not familiar with the Columbia Kittentails at all. I suspect that is Besseya spp. of some sort but I've never seen that color before. Amazing. Back to look at the other photo albums.

Yes, you do need to get yourself a digital camera as soon as you can! Have you ever seen those Columbia Kittentails in person?

Yes, Equilibrium, I have seen the Kittentails in person. The botanical name is Synthyris but precisely which species I don't know. They are relatively rare and they do grow here where I live. The only other place I have seen them is in the Columbia River Gorge on the Oregon side. They are beautiful!
Perhaps I should set up a 'Siskiyou-needs-a-digital-camera' fund. Any givers? Just kidding. For those of you who do have a digicam, can you recommend a fairly decent one that won't break the bank?
I am new to this area and I am just becoming familiar with the plants that grow here. I do know many of them, but there are many I don't. The Siskiyous, and much of southwest Oregon for that matter, are a plant-lover's paradise. Besides the climate, that is the main reason for relocating here. (I think 'twould be best I close my mouth now, lest all of you might move here!)

Hey sis, I just bought my BIL a little Samsung camera. $119 at WalMart. That thing takes the most awesome pictures. I want to trade him...he gave me his old one, which isn't really old, not even a year old. But my pics come out blurry just like they did on my old one! That Samsung is red and cute! I took pics on Memorial Day with it. They were all crystal clear....and the ones I took with my new one, his old one....blurry.

Thanks for the info, terryr. I will check my local Wally World.

These cameras can be like $500 one year and when the latest and greatest model comes out they drop in price considerably. I trashed a Kodak DX 6440 that I knew how to use. When I originally bought it, I think I paid quite a bit with the docking station and all. My husband bought me a really great state of the art camera but... I don't know how to use it. Shame, it's allegedly a nice camera. So, I went out looking for another a DX6440 (Technologically challenged me knew how to use it) and I found one left over brand new in the box for around $150. I think my heart sunk because I originally paid well over $500 for it. I think knowing what I know now, I'd never buy a current model year latest and greatest. I'd go to a camera shop like Wolf Camera and ask them what mint in box cameras they have with about 4.0 to 5.0 pixels and I'd call it a day. Get the clerk to help you learn how to use it before you leave the store. Otherwise, I'd go to WalMart like Terry said or Sam's Club to pick one up. High priced is not always best of you can't use it.

The Samsung is 5 pixels, good zoom (3x's I believe), bigger viewer than I've got and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. I couldn't and still can't believe how nice that little thing is. That macro setting is right on the front, where this Nikon one I can't figure out how to turn it on. Even reading the book, I can't figure it out.

Equil,

I was speaking of me, myself, personally. Not the human race, which I believe cropped up in Africa. *I* am a native of Kentucky. Nothing I ever do, nowhere I ever go, nor how long I live there will ever make *me* native to anywhere other than Covington, Kentucky.

Just call me a long time resident of Illinois.

So does this mean you will contribute a little Dode flesh loaf to the human race? It would be so cute!

Ummmm, Equil.....I'm not understanding you.

You missed a post somewhere. It was a tease to you to have a baby. My sense of humor must be off today.

"Again, I am not talking about the short term effects.. only the long term ones greater then five thousand years from now."

If you want to get really long-term, we're all just on parole from that great nuclear reactor in the sky, which'll reclaim the whole planet in just a few billion years...

Extinction's a fairly long-term phenomenon, though, and invasives are playing a big role in that. Will we ever have forests with American elm & chestnut again? Those were major players in US forest, but through invasive pests they're essentially gone from the wild. Pine bark beetles, longhorn beetles, ash borers, etc., may continue the trend. And we've got invasive cactus moths threatening to wipe out endemic Opuntia in Florida; if it spreads to the southwest, things could get bad. No prickly pears in the southwest US deserts would be a major change.

For that matter, introduced cattle have already drastically changed the desert landscape in New Mexico. Those changes are proving difficult to reverse, and may still be a major influence in 10- or 20-thousand years.

Patrick Alexander

I looked it up in my biological dictionary but there was no entry. The way I have always understood native to be used, in an evolutionary sense regarding a species living in an area, is as follows:

Native means the species came to that continent / island / distinct geographical area by natural means (storms blowing finches from the mainlands to the galapagos islands, for example, or the opossum migrating to north america when north and south america connected).

Introduced (or not native) means that the species was brought there by humans, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. Cattle in Texas are an example of a deliberately introduced species while the Argentine ant hitching a ride on coffee imports is an accidentally brought in one.

As far as I know, there's no fixed number of generations before a species that arrives naturally is considered native. An introduced species is never considered native no matter how much time passes.

-----Some further thoughts:-----

Invasive and non-invasive are totally separate ideas from native and introduced. I see some people here getting confused that introduced also means invasive and native means non-invasive. Both can be either, though the most danger for us comes from the introduced AND invasive species.

These definitions of native and introduced apply to species, not individuals. The person speaking of being native to Kentucky and living in Illinios is using a different definition of native; one regarding human individuals meaning birthplace. This usage of native does not apply to plants (unless you are perhaps speaking of where a certain plant sprouted? But it seems a little silly to say, "This tomato is native to my kitchen windowsill, and this one beside it is native to my greenhouse.") A lot of words have multiple definitions (example: season can apply to time of year as a noun or to food as a verb).

Now about humans... since we are part of the definition of native vs introduced, it's logical bad sense to apply the terms to ourselves.

However, if you really want to extrapolate the definition to our situation here in North America then I would say that our species is native. We evolved in Africa, yes, but our current range is the entire planet. Only if some intelligent alien life had come down and picked us up and plopped us over here would we be introduced. Since we got to North America on our own, then we are indeed native.

Of course, like everything in life, there will be things that don't fit neatly into the definitions. Someone mentioned iguanas getting carried to Caribbean Islands via hurricanes. I don't know much about iguanas (such as, are they native to other islands down there, or do they come from africa or somewhere else out of hurricane reach?), but assuming they are native to Central America or another Caribbean Island, then obviously a hurricane would be a natural way for them to arrive and if they survive should eventually be considered native. However, people being the way they are, since they arrived in our recorded history some may never consider them native, despite how many generations pass or how natural the means of arrival, and there will be others who decide that everything that survives a generation is native no matter if they plunked the species down themselves.

I hope I didn't ramble on too long.
-- Evilchicken

Interesting.

ah, semantics at it finest.

Colquhoun claims the horse to be introduced by man. That was what I was taught in school. The Barb was used by the Spanish, as was its offspring the Arab. The early English Thorobred was essentially the same. If horses were extinct here, then our Quarter Horse would be descended from and indistinguishable from the Arabs and Barbs

In the Aztec ruins of Mexico city there are severa full sets of horse bones - in the areas long before the Spanish came. There is a lot of text from that time to that sound like they knew of the horse already and many Native American groups had words for the horse before they saw the european ones...