<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Sara,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The whole idea that European settlers have basically
damned the botanical purity of North America is kind of a bummer at least, and
also grossly hyperbolic in my opinion. Think of all the breathtaking
natural places you have visited, where our flora thrives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>However, I consider myself a purist regarding issues of native
plants, and I also consider the population the most significant
unit, moreso than the species in some ways. In other words, I am
no apologist for those who try to downplay the importance of the issues you are
tackling. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So, how do I reconcile those two seemingly divergent
sensibilities? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The definition of a native plant is simply one that
has evolved in situ, here. Yes, someone could go
semantically wild and consider even recent adventive Eurasian weeds as
having evolved in situ, since all species are constantly adapting
and evolving--so from the day they arrive they begin to adapt, and continue
to evolve. One still might be tempted to put a temporal minimum on the
extent of evolution in situ to be counted as native. But evolution doesn't
happen at equal rates for all species, so again the real issue is the species'
own history--where it spent its formative years, so to speak. But most of
all, defining a 'native plant' ecologically, rather than socially or
culturally, is probably more tangible, scientific, accurate, and
useful. <BR><BR>The other issue is whether or not it is naive to exclude
our own actions from what we call natural evolution. Aren't we part
of that? Didn't we evolve from something? Some people will
suggest that native Americans moving plants was natural, but that movement of
plants by Europeans was not. I guess the idea is that moving natives
within the continent is ok, but from one continent to another is not. I
might accept that, but I think the assumption being made with the above goes
deeper--that native Americans were holier, so their movement of plants is more
acceptable spiritually, regardless of geography.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I do think we are part of evolution. Our movement of
species in the last few hundred years, like all our other functions, seems to be
happening at a rate that is exponentially faster than before. I
think most people would accept that as a rationale for why more recent movement
of plant species is not acceptable--that it is happening too much too fast, at
rates unprecedented in history. But then again, if we're doing it, and
we're organisms, then you can't say it's happening outside the bounds of
evolution unless you are prepared to say that we are basically outside the
bounds of evolution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Either way, whatever one wants to conclude about people, I
think taking an ecological definition of native plants--that they evolve(d)
here--clarifies things more than taking a sociocultural approach.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Good luck, thanks for putting it out there.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>Dan Segal</DIV>
<DIV>Pinelands Nursery & Supply</DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>