weeds???

	It's been said that a weed is a plant out of place. A rose is a
weed in a cornfield.

	I really don't know what is meant by a "native plant", since seeds
and "cuttings" and other plant parts are being distributed around the world
by a thousand different mechanisms all the time. Perhaps a native plant is
one that was here a hundred years ago.Anything introduced since that
"watershed" would be non-native.
	Has someone specified a time like 3:30 PM in Fiji on 11 July, 1933
as the great divide between native and non-native. If a plant was "here" at
that time it's a native. If it came later it's a non-native.
	To me, that is silly. We have a very dynamic situation.
	Another thing that is often not considered. We of course are the
dominant species on the plant. We are superior to everything else. We are
not part of the system. The ecological balance of the plant involves the
interactions of all the species on the plant with each other and their
environment. But of course this does not include us. We are above that.
Dispersal of plants around the world to "unnatural" places is done by
varmints and birds, but what people do does not count.    Right?
	Wrong!!!!   People are part of the system and are a means of
dispersal of plants just like anything else!. With our "progress" in
transportation we have increased out potential for dispersal of "unnatural"
plants enormously. I have a whole bunch of plants in my "greenhouse" that
don't grow "naturally" within a thousand miles of California. It's quite
possible that seeds from some tillandsias, with their tuft of hair, could
cling to the feathers of some bird who then flies a couple blocks away, or
a couple miles for that matter, and deposits them on a tree crotch with a
covering of detritus where they proceed to prosper. Thirty years from now
someone will find this little patch of plants and probably rush into print
extending the range of that plant. This is getting a little ridiculous. If
the nearest plant colony was in Bolivia, I think it would be obvious that
it had been introduced somehow.
	My point is, I don't think we can use native or non-native as a
criteria for judging the worth of a plant. I think we should document the
species present in an area. We should protect them as best we can. But we
should also recognize that some species are being lost "naturally" as part
of their natural history. I'm 76. It is probably a good bet that I won't be
here when I'm 100. (??) I will be extinct. It's natural. We regret it like
we regret the passing of a dear friend or family member. But it is
inevitable.
	What we need to do is to be careful that species do not become
extinct by "unnatural" means. I'm not sure what that means but I suppose
that if a species is introduced that is so agressive that it threatens a
species that was there before, then we should make an attempt to control
it. We will probably not be successful in the long run but we can postpone
the extinction for awhile. We can collect authentic specimens, describe
them, document them thoroughly but they will probably wind up in the
extinction file of the local herbarium sometime.
	So we should do what we can.  What else?		---Chas---
******************************************************************
        It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles E. Dills     1371 Avalon    San Luis Obispo    CA   93405
[Mac]      cdills@fix.net      805-544-1731     FAX 805-544-3865
cdills@fix.net      http://www.fix.net/~cdills/     No size limit.
Eudora 1.5.4      Netscape Navigator 3.0           Pagemaker 6.5
  Photoshop 5.0     Microsoft Word (Mac) 6.01        System 7.6.1
I can be forgetful. If I fail to do something I promised, tell me!
******************************************************************
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index