Re: Psuedacorus banned

---

Dennis I am somewhat confused. Certainly if one wants an ecosystem that resembles some less man dominated time it would be worth removing the pseudacorus from the preserve that you have been discussing. But if you introduce Ohio versicolors into the area and they were not there previously than is that any more ?natural? than having the pseudacorus there. Of course if the goal is simply to promote native plants than that would be a nice thing to do. I have never quite understood what people mean by ?native?. Usually they seem to refer to political boundaries. It seems the natural world is divided into ecological provinces that don?t respect politics. Missouri for example is quite different in its northern post-glaciated area from the Southern Ozark area or the bootheel Coastal plain. Iris fulva grows in the coastal plain but to move it to a pond in the Ozarks would seem to me to be an unnatural introduction. It seems to me that many native plant societies are fixated on the political boundaries rather than the ?natural? boundaries. As a collector I love ?native? plants and try to grow many things which occur in Missouri but are not indigenous to St. Louis. For example blooming now. Spigelia marylandica

Hopefully a couple of thoughts might be gained from my little parable. First just because a plant is native to this country does not mean it is part of the local eco-system. I don?t believe Iris versicolor is native to Ohio and if not it is as much an alien as pseudacorus. Using the native argument there should be only two Irises that should be allowed to be grown in Ohio.           

Yes, it is found naturally throughout many Ohio counties.  Thus, my idea to replace the pseudacorus with it and/or brevicaulis.

Dennis in Cincinnati