Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
*There is no precise terminology*, and can never be, for many concepts in ecology. The problem is that reality presents us with continua, with gradients without clear boundaries. Physicists who study light, don't, as far as I know, argue about the definition of "red"; they accept the nature of the spectrum and work with it mathematically. When precision matters, they speak of frequency or wavelength. *In biology*, species and other taxa represent continuously varying frequencies of genes bundled temporarily into organisms. There are patterns in this bundling, (the type of bundle we call a horse looks a lot like the type of bundle we call a donkey or a mule), but we can waste a lot of time arguing about the boundaries. *Landforms are no simpler*, and often grade insensibly together. Can one be sure where steppe, taiga, and tundra start and stop, or forest, woodland, grassland and desert? Behavioral scientists came up with "autism spectrum disorder" in the face of one of their troublesome continua. On one level, most of us realize that these issues aren't worth fighting about, *but then the law and commerce get involved*. A species gets on the endangered list, or not. (Which once caused some creative whalers to invent a new species, the Pygmy Blue Whale. Very similar the the Great Blue, but smaller. And, strangely, younger...because they hadn't grown up yet. By the time you can prove such lies, a lot of animals die.) Now there is evidence that polar bears and grizzlies are the same species, by the criterion of being cross-fertile. *Even religion has something at stake *in believing in fictional boundaries. I have heard arguments about the "kinds" of animals named by Adam and Eve. Is the African elephant the same "kind" as the Indian elephant? The answer had critical logistical implications for Noah. I suppose that a physicist who runs a traffic light could argue that it wasn't really red, and show spectral tracings to prove it. My reason for mentioning these silly cases is to point out the danger of getting too hung up on terminology, and to encourage people to find alternatives to rigid labels. For instance, numerical taxonomy allows us to treat genetic or phenotypic variability in terms of cladograms (trees) without worrying about names, and perhaps schemes like Holdridge's life zones and various diversity indices do the same for ecology. While these have not gained acceptance at the level where they can be used in law (as far as I know), there may be hope for this. For instance, the public has embraced the concept of "wind chill factor" as a statistic more useful (when deciding what to wear) than mere temperature. *Getting back to the original question:* an appropriate answer for "Is post oak native to Texas?" need not be a mere yes or no. How about a detailed range map superimposed on a map showing political boundaries, perhaps with date information included? The viewer could decide for him/her self if a species whose range had one little projection into a corner of Texas should be considered native to Texas or not. It is always possible that different workers assembling the range data used different criteria for defining the species, but there is no avoiding that for historical data. *In summary:* let's use words, squishy or otherwise, when we're chatting, but when precision matters, let's present data that don't rely on artificial boundaries. Martin M. Meiss 2012/3/22 Wayne Tyson > Ecolog and Ian, > > "If the term is "squishy", let's use more precise terminology . . ." > > So what IS that precise terminology? > > WT > > > - Original Message - From: "Ian Ramjohn" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:48 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of > "native" > > > > I think we're missing the point here. The problem isn't with the > definitions of native - it's an English word that's always going to > have a range of meanings. In other words - it's a poor term for science. > > "Is post oak native to Texas?" is a less than ideal question, because > the answer is binary - yes, or no. If you're really going to answer > that question - as a scientist - you'd say that (some or all) of Texas > lies within the (pre-settlement, historical, or whatever term you want > to define) range of the species _based_on_[certain]_data_. With the > obvious caveats, in the case of the US and Canada, that species ranges > reflect ongoing migration since the end of the last ice age. Or, "no, > data suggest that TX is outside the native range of the species". > > Fighting over semantics or values is pointless. If the term is > "squishy", let'
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Ecolog and Ian, "If the term is "squishy", let's use more precise terminology . . ." So what IS that precise terminology? WT - Original Message - From: "Ian Ramjohn" To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" I think we're missing the point here. The problem isn't with the definitions of native - it's an English word that's always going to have a range of meanings. In other words - it's a poor term for science. "Is post oak native to Texas?" is a less than ideal question, because the answer is binary - yes, or no. If you're really going to answer that question - as a scientist - you'd say that (some or all) of Texas lies within the (pre-settlement, historical, or whatever term you want to define) range of the species _based_on_[certain]_data_. With the obvious caveats, in the case of the US and Canada, that species ranges reflect ongoing migration since the end of the last ice age. Or, "no, data suggest that TX is outside the native range of the species". Fighting over semantics or values is pointless. If the term is "squishy", let's use more precise terminology, and be explicit about the uncertainty. Unless you're speaking to politicians, in which case you need to find a way to somehow convey an amount of certainty that can't be misconstrued, while still being nuanced enough that they can't (easily) turn what you say around to try to discredit you. And even then, the media will simply what you say, and the THOSE words will be used to discredit you. Quoting Wayne Tyson : Honorable Forum: Anybody who has any "sense" knows that words are imperfect, and anybody who has read "Alice in Wonderland" (or was it "Through the Looking Glass?" I just don't remember) knows that a word means "just what I (or the Red Queen?) say it means." Words are communication tools, and for them to work at perfect pitch, the parties to the communication have to understand and mean exactly the same thing, especially if it is to be considered "scientific." Ecology is a "squishy" subject, so it follows that there may even NEED to be a certain amount of "squish" in its terms. It has apparently endless variables that are in a constant state of change. So ecologist simply have to come to common agreement what "native" means (and does not mean). Izzat "ad populem?" WT - Original Message - From: "Andrew Pierce" To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your claim "it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the species that came to North America this way. To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because they were moved by agents? What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management University of Hawai'i USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they just il
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Right-on Chris. I've been thinking about it for a long time and still have not thought of or head of a definition of "species" that covers all they ways we use the word in biology. But then, it may be a faulty expectation to think we should be able to. Nature is under no obligation to conform to our simplistic desire for a one-on-one mapping between our vocabulary and the phenomena we observe. Even our own mental constructs defy our vocabulary. Martin M. Meiss 2012/3/20 Warren W. Aney > I've been skimming over this discussion and trying not to get involved. My > observation (which probably has already been covered) is that, except for > extinction, there are no absolutes in the field of ecology. We can't even > standardize the word's spelling (ecology vs. oecology) and its meaning > (does > ecology=environmentalism?). So terms such as native, invasive, indigenous, > endemic, exotic, introduced, etc. all have to be considered and defined in > terms of a particular context or usage. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Carlson > Sent: Tuesday, 20 March, 2012 08:13 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > > Came across this "op-documentary" this morning on the New York Times. > > Cute - and just the kind of thing that is helping shift our cultural > awareness to be specifically accepting of certain non-natives on our > landscape. Just don't plant your garden by the canal! > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/opinion/hi-im-a-nutria.html >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
I've been skimming over this discussion and trying not to get involved. My observation (which probably has already been covered) is that, except for extinction, there are no absolutes in the field of ecology. We can't even standardize the word's spelling (ecology vs. oecology) and its meaning (does ecology=environmentalism?). So terms such as native, invasive, indigenous, endemic, exotic, introduced, etc. all have to be considered and defined in terms of a particular context or usage. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Carlson Sent: Tuesday, 20 March, 2012 08:13 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" Came across this "op-documentary" this morning on the New York Times. Cute - and just the kind of thing that is helping shift our cultural awareness to be specifically accepting of certain non-natives on our landscape. Just don't plant your garden by the canal! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/opinion/hi-im-a-nutria.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Came across this "op-documentary" this morning on the New York Times. Cute - and just the kind of thing that is helping shift our cultural awareness to be specifically accepting of certain non-natives on our landscape. Just don't plant your garden by the canal! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/opinion/hi-im-a-nutria.html
[ECOLOG-L] Habitat Niche Stress Environment Genetics Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Ecolog:
I don't know about the rest of post-oak's range, or its genetics, but I
wonder about two things (actually I wonder about more, but I'm trying to
stick to my own suggested practice of keeping the issues to one--in this
case stress and adaptation thereto):
In the part of Texas where I used to camp in the post-oak woods the soil was
pretty much "blow-sand." Infiltration and percolation were high, leaching
nutrients and favoring deep rooting (I have pulled post-oak stumps, but not
done any "research" on this) forms and depriving shallow-rooting forms.
Something like the pine-barrens?
I also wonder about the nasty habit of oaks to hybridize, and where
"post-oak" fits into that.
WT
- Original Message -
From: "Gunnar Schade"
To:
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of
"native"
Howdy from the original poster
Yes, I did receive a lot of helpful responses, most (all?) of which were
posted to the list, to some of which I responded outside the list.
And yes, my original question was poorly worded in the sense that I did
not
mean to imply post oak was not native to Texas. However, that seemed to
have
sparked an (unintended) interesting discussion about what the word means,
prompting me to plead for excusing my non-ecologist ignorance on this
forum.
We are most interested in any insight you all here might have on why post
oak -- at least the trees/leaves we measured last year -- performed (in
terms of photosynthetic activity and heat + drought tolerance) better than
water oak and southern red oak. There may be multiple reasons for that,
but
one thing we (naively?) thought about was whether post oak is/has better
adapted to the Texas climate, which one could argue might stem from it
having grown there for much longer than the other species ("native" vs.
"not
so native" ?). In that aspect, some of the links circulated are not that
helpful. It appears to me that e.g. the USDA calls anything native that
occurs in a state, albeit in niches, and then calls the species native to
the whole state. As pointed out by one reply, post oak grows in a large
area
of Texas named after it, because it is the dominant tree species there.
The
other two species do not have that distinction.
I received some anecdotal evidence from foresters -- related to
mortality --
that confirm that post oak seems better adapted to Texas, but I am looking
for hard evidence, if any.
Thanks for your patience reading through this post, and thanks everyone
for
replying to my original inquiry ... though poorly worded.
Best,
Gunnar
On 3/17/2012 05:41 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
Ecolog:
Resetarits makes some excellent points.
While I quite understand the resistance to using such "terms" as
"squishy," I was trying to make a between-the-lines point: The term needs
to
match the phenomenon.
Any term should meet the test of relevance and clarity, and everyone
should recognize that "everything is context." Post-oaks, for example,
worked as a term in my childhood because "everybody" "knew" what post-oak
meant. "Native to Texas" is true, too, provided that the reader has the
sense to know that that means that post-oaks occur within the political
boundaries known as Texas. Exceptions, as necessary, should be noted by
the
writer where necessary, and by the reader, with the exception that a more
elaborate explanation is necessary by the writer if the reader does not
understand that the statement does not mean that post-oak is ONLY native
to
Texas.
We should hear from the original poster regarding whether or not the
original question has received relevant responses. I personally found the
question vague, and therefore suspicious. But it did awaken some thoughts
that should prove useful--IF there is follow-up to a conclusion, however
conditioned and provisional.
WT
--
---
Dr. Gunnar W. Schade
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
1104 Eller O&M Building
College Station, TX 77843-3150
e-mail: g...@geos.tamu.edu
http://georesearch.tamu.edu/blogs/oaktreeproject/
---
"Climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding
on which contemporary conservatism rests. There is
simply no way to square a belief system that vilifies
collective action and venerates total market freedom
with a problem that demands collective action on an
unprecedented scale and a dramatic reining in of the
market forces that created and are deepening the
crisis."
Naomi Klein, November 2011
-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4880 - Release Date: 03/19/12
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Howdy from the original poster
Yes, I did receive a lot of helpful responses, most (all?) of which were
posted to the list, to some of which I responded outside the list.
And yes, my original question was poorly worded in the sense that I did not
mean to imply post oak was not native to Texas. However, that seemed to have
sparked an (unintended) interesting discussion about what the word means,
prompting me to plead for excusing my non-ecologist ignorance on this forum.
We are most interested in any insight you all here might have on why post
oak -- at least the trees/leaves we measured last year -- performed (in
terms of photosynthetic activity and heat + drought tolerance) better than
water oak and southern red oak. There may be multiple reasons for that, but
one thing we (naively?) thought about was whether post oak is/has better
adapted to the Texas climate, which one could argue might stem from it
having grown there for much longer than the other species ("native" vs. "not
so native" ?). In that aspect, some of the links circulated are not that
helpful. It appears to me that e.g. the USDA calls anything native that
occurs in a state, albeit in niches, and then calls the species native to
the whole state. As pointed out by one reply, post oak grows in a large area
of Texas named after it, because it is the dominant tree species there. The
other two species do not have that distinction.
I received some anecdotal evidence from foresters -- related to mortality --
that confirm that post oak seems better adapted to Texas, but I am looking
for hard evidence, if any.
Thanks for your patience reading through this post, and thanks everyone for
replying to my original inquiry ... though poorly worded.
Best,
Gunnar
On 3/17/2012 05:41 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
> Ecolog:
>
> Resetarits makes some excellent points.
>
> While I quite understand the resistance to using such "terms" as
"squishy," I was trying to make a between-the-lines point: The term needs to
match the phenomenon.
>
> Any term should meet the test of relevance and clarity, and everyone
should recognize that "everything is context." Post-oaks, for example,
worked as a term in my childhood because "everybody" "knew" what post-oak
meant. "Native to Texas" is true, too, provided that the reader has the
sense to know that that means that post-oaks occur within the political
boundaries known as Texas. Exceptions, as necessary, should be noted by the
writer where necessary, and by the reader, with the exception that a more
elaborate explanation is necessary by the writer if the reader does not
understand that the statement does not mean that post-oak is ONLY native to
Texas.
>
> We should hear from the original poster regarding whether or not the
original question has received relevant responses. I personally found the
question vague, and therefore suspicious. But it did awaken some thoughts
that should prove useful--IF there is follow-up to a conclusion, however
conditioned and provisional.
>
> WT
--
---
Dr. Gunnar W. Schade
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
1104 Eller O&M Building
College Station, TX 77843-3150
e-mail: g...@geos.tamu.edu
http://georesearch.tamu.edu/blogs/oaktreeproject/
---
"Climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding
on which contemporary conservatism rests. There is
simply no way to square a belief system that vilifies
collective action and venerates total market freedom
with a problem that demands collective action on an
unprecedented scale and a dramatic reining in of the
market forces that created and are deepening the
crisis."
Naomi Klein, November 2011
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Ecolog: Resetarits makes some excellent points. While I quite understand the resistance to using such "terms" as "squishy," I was trying to make a between-the-lines point: The term needs to match the phenomenon. Any term should meet the test of relevance and clarity, and everyone should recognize that "everything is context." Post-oaks, for example, worked as a term in my childhood because "everybody" "knew" what post-oak meant. "Native to Texas" is true, too, provided that the reader has the sense to know that that means that post-oaks occur within the political boundaries known as Texas. Exceptions, as necessary, should be noted by the writer where necessary, and by the reader, with the exception that a more elaborate explanation is necessary by the writer if the reader does not understand that the statement does not mean that post-oak is ONLY native to Texas. We should hear from the original poster regarding whether or not the original question has received relevant responses. I personally found the question vague, and therefore suspicious. But it did awaken some thoughts that should prove useful--IF there is follow-up to a conclusion, however conditioned and provisional. WT - Original Message - From: "Resetarits, William" To: Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 9:14 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" Ecology has long been, and continues to be, terminologically challenged. 16 years ago several of us (Fauth et al. 1996) made what we felt was a valiant attempt to bring some clarity to a set of terms that would seem to lend themselves to a degree of precision, or at least clear functional definition, and that had existing definitions in the literature. These included such staples as community, guild, ensemble, etc. The initial impetus for this was our observation that the term "community," a rather central term in ecology, was being essentially used to describe "the stuff I am studying, " rather than anything truly definable. So, we had "bird communities", "bat communities", "zooplankton communities," "larval anuran communities", and things like "benthic fish communities," "herbivore communities" and "pollinator communities," etc. etc. Obviously, NONE of these amalgams met any existing definition of community, but they did fit definitions of guild, assemblage, ensembl! e, etc. We thought, well, this should be easy enough to fix! Just lay it out clearly, in a logical structure, using existing definitions, and voila! The idea was picked up by John Lawton and has also appeared in several texts, but has to a large extent fallen on deaf ears. Why?? Go ask Alice - people DO apparently want a word to mean "just what I choose for it to mean - no more, no less." So, 16 years later, an admittedly brief, unscientific, nonrandom survey of titles in ecology journals actually surprised me a bit, in that the ubiquitous use of the term "community" seems to be somewhat reduced in favor of more precise terms such as assemblage, or more detailed descriptors of what people are actually working on. Nonetheless, many of the old favorites are alive and well, "mammalian communities," "seabird communities," "herbivore communities" and of course "plant communities," to mention but a few. Change comes slowly, if at all. My point in the current context is that words matter, and precise definitions for words used in science matter even more. The concepts may indeed be fuzzy (post oak itself is a construct based on one or many definitions of species - communities may or may not exist as discrete entities), but when two people use the word "species" or "community" or "native" in an ecological context it should mean the same thing, or involve sufficient modifiers to make the differences in usage clear. If the word cannot be strictly defined or a definition agreed upon, then we must follow Ian's advice and use whatever combination of words necessary to make ourselves and our information clear. The statements "brook trout are native to North America" and "brook trout are native to Eastern North America" are both true, I would think, under any reasonable definition of native. One is simply more precise (and hence has less potential to mislead). In reality the terms "native" and "non-native,"! by their very nature, have no real meaning without some further historical context and it is this historical context that informs conservation and restoration. On 3/16/12 10:48 PM, "Ian Ramjohn" wrote: I think we're missing the point here. The problem isn't with the definitions
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
king Glass?" I just don't remember) knows that a word means "just > what I (or the Red Queen?) say it means." Words are communication > tools, and for them to work at perfect pitch, the parties to the > communication have to understand and mean exactly the same thing, > especially if it is to be considered "scientific." > > Ecology is a "squishy" subject, so it follows that there may even > NEED to be a certain amount of "squish" in its terms. It has > apparently endless variables that are in a constant state of change. > So ecologist simply have to come to common agreement what "native" > means (and does not mean). Izzat "ad populem?" > > WT > > > - Original Message - From: "Andrew Pierce" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > > > While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it > is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your > claim "it > was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated > there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first > humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or > construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the > species that came to North America this way. > To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by > other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native > because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because > they were moved by agents? > What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new > species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary > descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not > invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. > Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still > stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, > scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. > > Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D > Post-Doctoral Research Associate > Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management > University of Hawai'i > USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: > >> well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. >> Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, >> they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there >> or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other >> constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the >> concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of >> native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or >> they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters >> do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they >> just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that >> sometimes we disagree on the data. >> >> mcneely >> >> Matt Chew wrote: >>> Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" >> is >>> precisely false. >>> >>> I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent >> the >>> native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by >>> different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same >> thing. >>> >>> What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no > wonder, >>> since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of >>> place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, >> and >>> what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. >>> >>> Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., >> USGS >>> NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native >>> transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic >>> units. That is a political calculation. >>> >>> What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically >>> indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some >> organism >>> has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is >>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
I think we're missing the point here. The problem isn't with the definitions of native - it's an English word that's always going to have a range of meanings. In other words - it's a poor term for science. "Is post oak native to Texas?" is a less than ideal question, because the answer is binary - yes, or no. If you're really going to answer that question - as a scientist - you'd say that (some or all) of Texas lies within the (pre-settlement, historical, or whatever term you want to define) range of the species _based_on_[certain]_data_. With the obvious caveats, in the case of the US and Canada, that species ranges reflect ongoing migration since the end of the last ice age. Or, "no, data suggest that TX is outside the native range of the species". Fighting over semantics or values is pointless. If the term is "squishy", let's use more precise terminology, and be explicit about the uncertainty. Unless you're speaking to politicians, in which case you need to find a way to somehow convey an amount of certainty that can't be misconstrued, while still being nuanced enough that they can't (easily) turn what you say around to try to discredit you. And even then, the media will simply what you say, and the THOSE words will be used to discredit you. Quoting Wayne Tyson : Honorable Forum: Anybody who has any "sense" knows that words are imperfect, and anybody who has read "Alice in Wonderland" (or was it "Through the Looking Glass?" I just don't remember) knows that a word means "just what I (or the Red Queen?) say it means." Words are communication tools, and for them to work at perfect pitch, the parties to the communication have to understand and mean exactly the same thing, especially if it is to be considered "scientific." Ecology is a "squishy" subject, so it follows that there may even NEED to be a certain amount of "squish" in its terms. It has apparently endless variables that are in a constant state of change. So ecologist simply have to come to common agreement what "native" means (and does not mean). Izzat "ad populem?" WT - Original Message - From: "Andrew Pierce" To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your claim "it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the species that came to North America this way. To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because they were moved by agents? What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management University of Hawai'i USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that sometimes we disagree on the data. mcneely Matt Chew wrote: Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" is precisely false. I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent the native ran
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
prior to human record keeping works for me. if it was there before people started talking about it and writing it down, that's good enough. do you expect the world really was once upon a time in a state of some kind of "purity"? mcneely Andrew Pierce wrote: > While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it > is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your > claim "it > was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated > there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first > humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or > construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the > species that came to North America this way. > To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by > other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native > because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because > they were moved by agents? > What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new > species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary > descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not > invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. > Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still > stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, > scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. > > Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D > Post-Doctoral Research Associate > Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management > University of Hawai'i > USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: > > > well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. > > Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, > > they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there > > or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other > > constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the > > concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of > > native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or > > they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters > > do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they > > just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that > > sometimes we disagree on the data. > > > > mcneely > > > > Matt Chew wrote: > > > Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" > > is > > > precisely false. > > > > > > I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent > > the > > > native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by > > > different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same > > thing. > > > > > > What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no wonder, > > > since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of > > > place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, > > and > > > what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. > > > > > > Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., > > USGS > > > NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native > > > transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic > > > units. That is a political calculation. > > > > > > What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically > > > indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some > > organism > > > has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is > > > known to have physically moved it – or its forbears. But we relax > > various > > > aspects of that as easily as we apply them. > > > > > > As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated > > > conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the > > > shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept > > is > > > a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable > > > intuition. If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise) > > > there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing > > > science. > > > > > > 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 > > -- David McNeely
[ECOLOG-L] Ecology terminology Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Honorable Forum: Anybody who has any "sense" knows that words are imperfect, and anybody who has read "Alice in Wonderland" (or was it "Through the Looking Glass?" I just don't remember) knows that a word means "just what I (or the Red Queen?) say it means." Words are communication tools, and for them to work at perfect pitch, the parties to the communication have to understand and mean exactly the same thing, especially if it is to be considered "scientific." Ecology is a "squishy" subject, so it follows that there may even NEED to be a certain amount of "squish" in its terms. It has apparently endless variables that are in a constant state of change. So ecologist simply have to come to common agreement what "native" means (and does not mean). Izzat "ad populem?" WT - Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Pierce" To: Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your claim "it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the species that came to North America this way. To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because they were moved by agents? What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management University of Hawai'i USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that sometimes we disagree on the data. mcneely Matt Chew wrote: > Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" is > precisely false. > > I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent the > native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by > different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same thing. > > What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no > wonder, > since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of > place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, and > what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. > > Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., USGS > NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native > transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic > units. That is a political calculation. > > What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically > indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some organism > has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is > known to have physically moved it – or its forbears. But we relax various > aspects of that as easily as we apply them. > > As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated > conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the > shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept is > a red herring un
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." Through the Looking Glass. At 12:58 PM 3/16/2012, Andrew Pierce wrote: While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your claim "it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the species that came to North America this way. To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because they were moved by agents? What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management University of Hawai'i USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: > well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. > Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, > they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there > or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other > constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the > concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of > native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or > they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters > do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they > just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that > sometimes we disagree on the data. > > mcneely > > Matt Chew wrote: > > Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" > is > > precisely false. > > > > I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent > the > > native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by > > different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same > thing. > > > > What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no wonder, > > since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of > > place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, > and > > what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. > > > > Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., > USGS > > NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native > > transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic > > units. That is a political calculation. > > > > What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically > > indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some > organism > > has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is > > known to have physically moved it or its forbears. But we relax > various > > aspects of that as easily as we apply them. > > > > As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated > > conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the > > shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept > is > > a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable > > intuition. If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise) > > there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing > > science. > > > > 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 > David Cameron Duffy Professor of Botany and Unit Leader Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit (PCSU) University of Hawai`i 3190 Maile Way St. John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822-2279 (8
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
While the definition you provide might be a suitable working definition, it is not a suitable scientific definition. As a counter-example to your claim "it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping" there are species that the first humans brought to North America; these species violate the either-or construction of your definition because we don't even 'know' all of the species that came to North America this way. To further push the envelope, what about species that were moved around by other hominids (*Homo habilis, H. erectus*) or neandertals? Are they native because they weren't moved by *H. sapiens*? Or are the non-native because they were moved by agents? What about species that were introduced by humans and then evolved into new species? Is the introduced species non-native, but the evolutionary descendant is native? Appeals to the crowd (*argument ad populum*) do not invalidate these critiques and neither do *ad hominem *attacks. Finally, the point that 'native' is a definition that eludes us still stands. While local and pragmatic definitions of it might exist, a global, scientifically defensible definition of it does not exist. Andrew D. Pierce, Ph.D Post-Doctoral Research Associate Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management University of Hawai'i USFS-Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: > well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. > Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, > they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there > or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other > constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the > concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of > native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or > they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters > do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they > just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that > sometimes we disagree on the data. > > mcneely > > Matt Chew wrote: > > Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" > is > > precisely false. > > > > I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent > the > > native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by > > different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same > thing. > > > > What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no wonder, > > since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of > > place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, > and > > what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. > > > > Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., > USGS > > NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native > > transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic > > units. That is a political calculation. > > > > What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically > > indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some > organism > > has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is > > known to have physically moved it – or its forbears. But we relax > various > > aspects of that as easily as we apply them. > > > > As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated > > conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the > > shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept > is > > a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable > > intuition. If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise) > > there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing > > science. > > > > 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 >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
well, you can make word games out of simple concepts if you wish to. Whenever most sane people refer to a species as being native in a place, they mean it was not taken there by human agency, but either evolved there or migrated there prior to human record keeping. Pretty simple. The other constructs you mention complicate matters, yes, but they do not define the concept of a species being native to a locality. The multiple maps of native range for ponderosa pine may be based on different data sets, or they may be based on different definitions of the species. Those matters do not alter what is meant by a species being native in a location, they just illustrate that we don't always have all the information, or that sometimes we disagree on the data. mcneely Matt Chew wrote: > Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" is > precisely false. > > I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent the > native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by > different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same thing. > > What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no wonder, > since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of > place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, and > what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. > > Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., USGS > NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native > transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic > units. That is a political calculation. > > What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically > indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some organism > has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is > known to have physically moved it – or its forbears. But we relax various > aspects of that as easily as we apply them. > > As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated > conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the > shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept is > a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable > intuition. If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise) > there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing > science. > > 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Jason Persichetti's contention, "we all know what is meant by the idiom" is precisely false. I routinely show audiences eight different maps purporting to represent the native range of _Pinus_ponderosa_, prepared for different purposes by different authorities. They can't all be correct AND mean the same thing. What "native species" denotes actually varies quite a bit, and no wonder, since it includes three explicit degrees of freedom (specifications of place, time, and taxon) at least two tacit ones (who counts as a human, and what counts as human agency) plus an authority claim. Authority claims alone entail ad hoc redefinitions of "native"; e.g., USGS NAS roils the waters by calling _Micropterus_salmoides_ a "native transplant" in the United States outside a particular set of hydrologic units. That is a political calculation. What "native species" connotes also varies, but recently, typically indicates the idiomist is making or ratifying a judgment that some organism has a moral claim to persisting in a specified place because no human is known to have physically moved it – or its forbears. But we relax various aspects of that as easily as we apply them. As is (remarkably) typical of ecology's idioms, we have no calibrated conception of this supposedly fundamental characteristic. Blaming the shortcomings of language for our failure to formulate a coherent concept is a red herring unless our consensus "native" really is an inarticulable intuition. If it is (and nothing I've read so far suggests otherwise) there's nothing to calibrate, much less recalibrate, and we're not doing science. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
As a lowly student I would like to echo Wayne and McNeely's responses to Dr. Chew's statements. To imply that the members of the list would benefit from being reminded that Texas has not always been called Texas implies that we are all rather ignorant. At best there was some semantic fun in the statements; as I take Dr. Chew's attempt to enlighten us, the pedant making the statement was probably the only one having much fun. Dr. Chew, I have read much of what you post here and gather that you are bent on having ecologists recalibrate their view of invasive species. I am quite fond of contrarian viewpoints, and prone to eagerly accept them. As such, I would normally be very inclined to agree with your exhortation that we all take a skeptical and nuanced look at the dogma of recent evidence of introduction implies catastrophic negative impacts. However, this stance is not giving the rest of us much credit for our ability to think critically and the manner in which you make your arguments makes me extremely skeptical. In short, I'm saying that you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar, to which you might reply with something of this sort: http://xkcd.com/357/. My point being, we all know what is meant by the idiom, and we're all doing our best to communicate through the imperfect and imprecise medium of written language. If you give the rest of the world the benefit of the doubt that we! might have some clue about what we're talking about or that we're capable of critically evaluating other's statements, maybe, just maybe we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to listen to what you're saying instead of dismissing you as a blowhard. -Jason Persichetti -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:16 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" 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 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
That USDA range map for post oak touches on a point raised earlier. Those civic-minded oaks conform their range exactly to US state and national boundaries, and nowhere is it introduced. And, Dave M., despite your "Good grief" to Matt C.. don't you think it's appropriate to pay some attention to the temporal nature of geographic boundaries? Does it sound right to say "Dinosaurs once roamed New York City"? It sounds sillier when applied to a city rather than a state, but the principle is the same. When speaking carefully we can insert the phrase "...what is now..." Martin M. Meiss 2012/3/13 David L. McNeely > 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 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" > > To: > > 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 > > >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 > > > > > >> 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 > ver
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
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 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" > To: > 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 > >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 > > > >> 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. > >> >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Tacy, I believe that a naturalized species is generally considered to be one that after introduction has established a viable population. http://69.90.183.227/doc/articles/2002-/A-00249.pdf Post oak is not an introduced species in Texas, it is "native" by any definition. When Europeans came on the scene, it was here. No human agent is known to have brought it. Unlike honeybees that moved across the landscape as an invasive ahead of migrating Europeans, post oak was already here. mcneely Tacy Fletcher wrote: > >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 >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 > >> 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
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" To: 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 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 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
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 >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 > >> 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 >> > > >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
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 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Y'all: Since I grew up deep in the Post-Oak Timber Belt of Texas, I probably have everything wrong, as my "knowledge" is in the "folk" category. My great-grandfather moved to Texas after the Civil War, and I took out the bob-wahr that he had stapled to post-oaks before the turn of the century (20th). I had to chop out the wire which by then (ca 1948?) was deeply imbedded into the heartwood. How did you get the idea that post-oaks were not native to Texas? I presume that you mean indigenous or that you mean that they evolved in that nutrient-poor sand, but I'd rather that you told me what you mean. WT PS: In Texas, "native" means born there. I wasn't. I was a "prune-picker." - Original Message - From: "David L. McNeely" To: Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native" > Gunnar, where in the world would that question come from? Post oak has been > in Texas probably for much of its existence as a species. So far as it being > "preEuropean," if that is required for you to define something as "native," a > substantial portion of Texas is covered by a "native" forest of post oak and > black jack, and is called The Cross Timbers." It likely got its name from > being made up of Post Oak, which was during Texas colonial days more commonly > called Cross Oak by English speaking immigrants to that part of northern > Mexico. > > David McNeely > > Gunnar Schade wrote: >> Howdy! >> >> I am trying to figure out whether post oak (Quercus stellata) can rightfully >> called "native" to Texas (compared to, e.g., a species like water oak, >> Quercus nigra). So I wonder if there is a good definition of what "native" >> means out there ... >> >> Thanks, >> Gunnar > > -- > David McNeely > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4866 - Release Date: 03/12/12 >
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 > 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 >
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] definition of "native"
Gunnar, where in the world would that question come from? Post oak has been in Texas probably for much of its existence as a species. So far as it being "preEuropean," if that is required for you to define something as "native," a substantial portion of Texas is covered by a "native" forest of post oak and black jack, and is called The Cross Timbers." It likely got its name from being made up of Post Oak, which was during Texas colonial days more commonly called Cross Oak by English speaking immigrants to that part of northern Mexico. David McNeely Gunnar Schade wrote: > Howdy! > > I am trying to figure out whether post oak (Quercus stellata) can rightfully > called "native" to Texas (compared to, e.g., a species like water oak, > Quercus nigra). So I wonder if there is a good definition of what "native" > means out there ... > > Thanks, > Gunnar -- David McNeely
