to get back to the original question, here is the USDA take on the matter: http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUST&mapType=nativity&photoID=qust_002_avp.tif
mcneely ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > Are you sure you're not seeing recolonization? The Texas of my boyhood was > largely spent camping out in the post-oak timber belt, and I personally > pulled stumps as my part of clearing them to plant alien pasture grasses, > goobers, hairy vetch, and other "crops" recommended by the county agent. > >From the mid-ninteenth century until the present era, such clearing has been > tantamount to "doing God's will." Maybe God has something to do with the > recolonization of the post-oaks, the grass-burrs, the briar patches, the > poison ivy and all the other plants and animals that once populated that > region? > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tacy Fletcher" <cay...@yahoo.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:20 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > > > >From a land-manager's perspective regarding the post oaks of the Texas > >region, most likely one would say that post-oaks havenaturalizedas many > >introduced species do. Whether the species was introduced by animal or > >weather phenomena is a debate not worth having. But for fun I thought I > >would add the POV of a stewardship technician: that if it isn't running > >amok, then I have more aggressive plant species to try to corral. > > Cordially yours, > > Tacy Fletcher (uses pseudonym "Cayt Fletch" on facebook) also > tflet...@pnc.edu > Fletch > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> > >To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:39 AM > >Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > > > > 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 <anek...@gmail.com> > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4868 - Release Date: 03/13/12 -- David McNeely
