<html>
<body>
<font size=3>All:<br><br>
It is characteristic of authoritarian cultural hierarchies to insist upon
"definitive" definitions. But reality consists of change and
variation. <br><br>
Let's face it--there is one ecosystem, Earth. And maybe "the
universe," whatever that is. But as a "practical
matter" we want complex systems to behave in predictable ways--our
ways. Such is the arrogance of Homo sap. <br><br>
"Native" is a kind of irony. The word comes from the
Latin, <i>"nativus," </i>meaning "born." As an
individual, I am a "native" Californian because I was born in
California. But I grew up in Texas, where my father was
"native," whose grandmother was "native" to North
Carolina, whose mother was born there too, but was a "native"
Cherokee, whose ancestors came to North America via the Bering Strait, no
doubt with a string of individuals "native" to numerous places
in between. At one time in the history of this chain of invasion,
each individual who stayed in the same place in which she was born was
"native" to that place. But when they moved into new
habitats they became alien invaders. I am "native" to the
entity called the State of California, but my father was an alien, as
were, at one time or another, all of his ancestors, save, perhaps, in
some philosophical sense, some hominid in Africa, from which my species
dispersed. I can only be fairly certain that I am native to the
earth, and not necessarily alien to the rest of existence, in some
obscure philosophical sense. <br><br>
With most plants, their ability to move from one habitat to another is
limited. This does not, however, keep them from
"trying." Propagules disperse by wind, by wing, by foot,
hitching a "ride" in feathers, guts, and by determined
horticulturists. When they find a habitat congenial to their growth
and reproduction, they "put down roots." Do they become
"native" when their progeny continue to reproduce and expand
their populations in the new habitat where they did not exist
before? This is an epistemological question which must be
"begged" in some way that fits, or is at least expedient to,
our chosen context.<br><br>
Our context is history-dependent. Therefore, a "native"
plant is one that we know preceded us--its lineage, in the habitat at
issue, is pre-historic. Easy, eh? No?<br><br>
Respectfully submitted, <br>
WT<br><br>
<br>
At 08:41 AM 6/28/2006, Craig Dremann wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Emily, Greg and
All,<br><br>
Thanks for your email.<br><br>
When I posted the question about the "native plant" definition
issue, I<br>
did not realize how important it was, that the US Forest Service has<br>
opened a public comment period in order to set a new definition of<br>
"native plant", for the entire Forest Service.<br><br>
All interested parties are supposed to post their comment(s)
according<br>
to the directions in the Federal Register Notice. The proposed<br>
policy is posted:<br>
<a href="http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/whoweare/documents/FSM2070_Final_2_062905.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/whoweare/documents/FSM2070_Final_2_062905.pdf</a>
<br><br>
There's always an exception to a rule, regarding defining "native
plant"<br>
as those plants which are original members of an ecosystem, or as
Gregg<br>
quoted from the NPS definition of an "EXOTIC" as "those
species that<br>
occupy...park lands directly or indirectly as the result of
deliberate<br>
or accidental human activities."<br><br>
Also, the NPS definition of "Native" as plants
"...evolving in concert<br>
with each other" could also include ALL naturalized exotics over
time,<br>
because once naturalized, they too are evolving along with the
ecosystem<br>
that they are now firmly attached to.<br><br>
Unfortunately the NPS definition of EXOTIC ignores the thousands of<br>
years of Native American moving plants around and humans
naturalizing<br>
them at different locations within North America. <br><br>
The Juglans californica in California, the original historic
ecosystem<br>
was the Santa Barbara area. Many thousands of years ago, the
California<br>
Indians took seeds and planted them all over central and northern<br>
California at their village sites along stream banks. <br><br>
Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County in the San Francisco Bay Area is
an<br>
example of such an ancient village site. Anywhere you see
California<br>
walnuts growing along a creek, a California Indian village once thrived.
<br><br>
Over time, and in isolation from the original genetic material in<br>
Southern California, the northern California material evolved into a<br>
separate botanically recognized subspecies, var. Hindsii. <br><br>
Also in California many sedges and perennial grasses used for
basketry,<br>
plus the semi-domesticated sunflowers were moved and planted around<br>
village sites. Driving through California, for example up and down
I-5<br>
in the Central Valley, a botanist can spot an ancient village site<br>
easier than an archeologist and at 70 miles an hour, because that's<br>
where the wild sunflowers are still growing today in mass.<br><br>
Many years ago, I asked a California Valley Yokuts Indian about a<br>
particular large stand of sunflowers along I-5, and was that an
ancient<br>
village site? She gave me a shocked look and didn't say anything
for a<br>
while, but later she whispered that area was the secret location of
the<br>
tribe's ancient sweat lodge that they still use, and nobody was
supposed<br>
to know about it--but the sunflowers still pointed the way, after
200<br>
years.<br><br>
Plus there's the form of Indian Rice grass (Orysopsis hymenoides)
that<br>
was selected and intentionally spread by humans. It differs from
the<br>
original wild form, in that when the seeds are ripe, the seeds do
not<br>
disperse, which is a human-selected trait within the grass family.
<br><br>
Over the many thousands of years of intentionally planting and<br>
naturalization, the non-shattering form has become the dominant form
of<br>
Indian Ricegrass across the West, and the original naturally-evolved<br>
ripe-seed-shattering form, can barely be found anywhere (I did a
survey<br>
in 1997).<br><br>
And then in Canada, the Great Lakes, and Europe, there's the paradox
of<br>
the Sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata) occurring in both northern
Europe<br>
and North America, and it is a plant which rarely produces viable seed.
<br>
The grasses evolved after Europe and North America split, so how did
the<br>
same vegetatively reproduced species get on two continents?
<br><br>
Did someone bring it to Europe from North America or did someone
bring<br>
it to North America from Europe? So where is it "native"
to? <br><br>
Does it mean that we should give all plants naturalized into and
around<br>
North America by humans before 1492, a pass? <br><br>
Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list<br>
RWG@lists.plantconservation.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a>
</font></blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>