Even if we agree as to what "native" means, phrases such as "native to
Texas" are problematic, and not just because, as Matt Chew points out,
human political constructs vary with time. If a tree is native to one
little corner of Texas, then the statement "native to Texas" applies, but
what does it mean? It might be politically significant, for instance for
state laws governing exploitation of the species, but biologically not very
useful. It seems to me that for biological purposes, the concept of
"native" should be tied to some biologically oriented construct, such as
Holdridge's life zones.
Of course, a person out for a walk my come upon a species and wonder
if it is found in the area because of human intervention. Phrasing the
question as "Is this species native to this area?" would probably be
understood, but perhaps it would be better to ask in terms of human
intervention, i.e., "Is this species introduced?" Sometimes it is easier
to account for what humans do than for what nature does.
Martin M. Meiss
2012/3/13 Matt Chew <[email protected]>
> The general definition of 'native' is 'not introduced'. It is a historical
> criterion, not an ecological one, and it rests entirely on absence of
> evidence for introduction. That definition has not changed at all since it
> was first fully codified in England in 1847.
>
> David McNeely's claim that "Post oak has been in Texas probably for much of
> its existence as a species" suggests that Texas has been Texas for a very
> long time indeed. But Texas, as a place identified by various sets of
> boundaries, is itself "post European" by the standard David provided. By
> 1847 Texas was already flying the fifth of its six European-derived flags,
> during the Mexican-American War. And of course, post oak certainly isn't
> endemic to any version of Texas, no matter how expansively imagined; most
> post oaks have not been in Texas in any way.
>
> The tree hasn't even been called 'post oak' for "much of its existence as a
> species". Whether it was a species at all before being described and named
> _Quercus_stellata_ by Friederich Adam Julius von Wangenheim late in the
> 18th century is arguable, but it is certain that _Quercus_stellata_
> translates more literally to "star oak" than "post oak". Very Texan.
>
> While this is all good semantic fun, it also draws attention serious
> conceptual weaknesses in our vague ideas and ideals of place-based
> belonging. For more, see
>
> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew/Papers/450641/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Biotic_Nativeness_A_Historical_Perspective
> a.k.a. chapter 4 of Richardson's "Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The
> Legacy of Charles Elton."
>
> Matthew K Chew
> Assistant Research Professor
> Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
>
> ASU Center for Biology & Society
> PO Box 873301
> Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> Tel 480.965.8422
> Fax 480.965.8330
> [email protected] or [email protected]
> http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
> http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
>
