Thanks. I think it's really important that we discuss these things because I think that sometimes when we talk past each other it's because we haven't thought about what we mean about things like which species are native.
That's exactly the kind of equivalence that I avoid because of the confusion it causes. Terms such as native or indigenous have fundamentally different meanings and connotations for humans. Calling a human 'native' has long had derogatory connotations. Indigenous people are not the equivalent of indigenous species, and that's fine, lots of words have different meaning in different contexts.
As I understand it, there are no scientifically accepted biological classifications for humans below the level of species. There are meaningful cultural and language differences, but I don't equate these with differences between other animals, plants, microbes etc.
When I teach interns about nonnative species, I tell them it's just as much about philosophy as it is about biology. I will point to eucalypti, trees brought from thousands of miles away to Southern California and ask if they are nonnative. Everyone agrees that they are.
But I will point to Saint Catharine's lace, a buckwheat endemic to an island 30 miles off our coast and ask if that is nonnative. I do the same with Tecate cypress, trees planted in our landscaping but otherwise native to mountaintops about 20 miles distant. With these examples, the answers start to get fuzzy.
I think it's so useful to look at these cases and discuss them. I think sometimes the philosophical and values-based aspect gets lost, and then we can end up trampling over people's values and beliefs when we might have found agreement with more openness.
Fascinating discussion. Lot of good food for thought in here on what is considered “native” and the appropriate terms to use.
Thanks. I think it's really important that we discuss these things because I think that sometimes when we talk past each other it's because we haven't thought about what we mean about things like which species are native.
Would you say that Europeans are a non -native subspecies?
That's exactly the kind of equivalence that I avoid because of the confusion it causes. Terms such as native or indigenous have fundamentally different meanings and connotations for humans. Calling a human 'native' has long had derogatory connotations. Indigenous people are not the equivalent of indigenous species, and that's fine, lots of words have different meaning in different contexts.
As I understand it, there are no scientifically accepted biological classifications for humans below the level of species. There are meaningful cultural and language differences, but I don't equate these with differences between other animals, plants, microbes etc.
Thanks for the reminder of the link between plant choices in my home garden and what happens in our native forests.
Thanks Judy. It's always an uncomfortable one for me, when plants I love misbehave.
When I teach interns about nonnative species, I tell them it's just as much about philosophy as it is about biology. I will point to eucalypti, trees brought from thousands of miles away to Southern California and ask if they are nonnative. Everyone agrees that they are.
But I will point to Saint Catharine's lace, a buckwheat endemic to an island 30 miles off our coast and ask if that is nonnative. I do the same with Tecate cypress, trees planted in our landscaping but otherwise native to mountaintops about 20 miles distant. With these examples, the answers start to get fuzzy.
I think it's so useful to look at these cases and discuss them. I think sometimes the philosophical and values-based aspect gets lost, and then we can end up trampling over people's values and beliefs when we might have found agreement with more openness.