Good grief, Matt. How long the region we now call Texas has been called that is irrelevant, and how much territory the name has encompassed at various times is also irrelevant. The question had to do with whether Post Oak was "native" to the region now called Texas.
Short answer, without knowing the inquirer's criteria for "native," is yes. It is silly to make a statement claiming that I suggest that Texas has been Texas for any particular period of time. The question was about a geographic locality, not the political matter of who called it what when. However, historical evidence suggests that Spanish speakers were the first to apply a name similar to Texas, and that it was based on their name for one or more "Native" American groups. I pointed out that _Quercus stellata_ has gone by other names (though the binomial does suggest "Star Oak," I am not aware of it ever going by that common name), one of which (Cross Oak) gives a clue to its presence and indeed abundance in the area now known as Texas because the same term was applied to a large forested area, the Cross Timbers, by English speakers during that time. Spanish speakers called the same woodland, which stretches across a large swath of the state, _Monte Grande_. The name Cross Timbers seems to have been written for the first time formally on a map by Stephen F. Austin in the 1820s. I see no reason to suggest that the English speakers of the time would have given a name to a landscape based on an introduced tree. No one suggested Post Oak is a Texas endemic. It occurs throughout a fairly large portion of the eastern U.S. McNeely ---- Matt Chew <anek...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > mc...@asu.edu or anek...@gmail.com > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew -- David McNeely
