Hi

One that I researched and still don't have an answer to is Coconut. It is found in all tropical areas of the entire world . Even though there are dozens of different cultivars there is only one specie so DNA is useless lol

It appears to have been in the Bahamas as well as Cuba when the first explorers arrived but not one mention of Florida . But when you think about it even if it was here could have been brought by Native Americans ??

I leave the definition of "Native" to the botanists lol "Invasive" a different story lol gary

Invasive is indeed a different animal altogether and can cause a lot of debate when brought up. Which is why I won't!

I am a 'member' of Florida Wildflower Foundation as are lots of other people who bought their tags, but I also order seeds from them to introduce more types to my wildflower bed. I have also thought about joining my county's chapter of FNPS. Despite my lean toward natives, I have a mix of native and 'exotic' in my yard. The concept of native always meant what was native to Florida and I have even done a little research to see what would have been in my specific area centuries ago before man started messing with it. So my concept of natives goes from very location specific to state-wide, but if I take into account other warm, humid areas along the Gulf Coast, I could expand my 'natives' collection and improve diversity. Though... I don't know where I would put more plants.... on the roof of my lanai maybe?

According to my book "Native Florida Plants", native plants came in naturally long ago. They were brought in by wind, sea, birds, animals or other natural factors. Exotics are plants that have been introduced intentionally or accidentally. Florida botanists sometimes classify native plants as those that were growing here before the middle of the 16th century, when the Spanish colonists arrived.

What's to stop plants from continuing to arrive here via the same routes regine mentions? Is there a cutoff date? I say this thinking about the large, weedy lantana camara - which is spread by birds. How is impossible that it belongs here in FL, when it is native to other regions near Florida? A local horticulturalist pointed that out to me years ago.

I tend to rely on the lists provided by our various local resources to determine what is 'native', BTW.

Here's a cool resource - you can browse by scientific name, etc. as well...

http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Browse.aspx?cat=Common+Name

I get what you're saying Carol. It's like how Gary pointed out about coconuts. Who is to say that even without man's help a coconut wouldn't wash up on the shores of South Florida, sprout and grow? I think in the case of L. camara, the odds would be against it because birds generally have a North/South migratory pattern, but there are some that do travel along the Gulf Coast to spread to the Southeast. It would probably take centuries, but it's possible that the plant would eventually make it here. Because of man though, it made it here far sooner and in such numbers that the ecology wasn't able to adapt to it. One of the 'native' Lantanas, I don't recall which one, is under scrutiny from historical botanists because they aren't really sure that it should be classified as a native as it might be more of a naturalized species brought here from one of the Caribbean islands by birds. That, to me, is far more natural and 'native' than L. camara.

I guess one reason Aussies reason it out the way they do. Perhaps Australian animals on the east coast are able to utilize plants from the west coast far more easily. I would have to learn more about Aussie ecology to really weigh in on that though.

Speaking of L. camara though, there was an episode of this show where they were cleaning up an island where L. camara had spread so rampantly that there were entire areas smothered with it and no native plant life (aside from trees) was left.

I just watched an episode tonight that cleared up the Aussie views. It's more a difference in terminology than concept. They use the word native to describe any plant found in Australia and the word indigenous to describe plants found in certain locations.

Yes, you have the right idea, Michael, et al. In my state, the original land surveyors took voluminous notes on the flora and fauna they witnessed as they traversed the land. These then can be made into a map, showing plant community types. I also agree that there should be no cut-off in time-nature is as restless and dynamic today as it was a thousand or a million years ago, but that plant species obviously introduced by man are not native, even if at some point in the future, they may have somehow gotten to the location in question.

Then there's the whole issue of "nativars", that is, cultivars of existing native species. I won't get into that just now, but it is an area rife with disagreement and acrimony!

Finally, let's say, just for argument, that a given plant species is native across a large area. You guys have red maple-Acer rubrum-as a component of your native flora. So do we up here in Wisconsin. That tree is very wide-ranging. But in my conception, it would be both wrong and foolhardy to use Florida genetics in Wisconsin and call it "native", just as it would be foolish to expect success. This is really just skimming the surface. this is an area that can go very, very deep.

+oM

ps....water lettuce is an example of a plant which, introduced to Florida some 500 years ago, by Spanish explorers, is to at least some degree now accepted as part of the native flora. Not complete acceptance, just more of an acknowledgment that it is here, and here to stay. I guess that's still not truly native though.

Hi

Always found it interesting that the early explorers made no attempt to identify any of the flora or fauna that they were seeing yet the entire primary purpose of the voyages was for plant life , At the same time they noted the natives were eating things they'd never heard of !!lol

Corn ,Cocoa ,Vanilla, along with potato, tomato,tobacco are obviously western hemi products but where are they "native"?? lol definitey NOT from the worlds largest producers of those crops. today??

DNA may unravel it a bit ?? gary

I know people who take it down to the level of DNA. It just depends on goals. Outside of Chicago, there are large areas of reserve land, some forested, some prairie, some wetlands, etc. A girl at a native plants talk described their extremely fastidious methods of maintaining true native gene lines in the species they used within those sites. While I admire their efforts, I can't typically go to that extent in my work. A typical designation would be something like-from within 200 miles of the planting site, etc. But it gets weird: One time, saw some guys with seed collection bags, going through one of our planted prairies, harvesting Sylphium seeds. Besides the fact they had no permission to be doing this, I had to wonder-did those seeds end up in a catalog being described as native NE Wisconsin ecotype? Of course, where we live and work, the predominant original plant cover type was not even prairie, so there's all kinds of twists and turns.

The Native Americans were great spreaders of plant species. All those Meso-American food plants-the big three so to speak, corn, beans, and potatoes, were all moved steadily northward in prehistoric times, ending up far, far north of where "nature" put them. I've been all around the block as far as whether this or that human activity ought to be considered a part of "nature"-don't have time to rehash all those arguments here today. Anyway, the story is still unfolding. Someone on the Native Plants forum suggested-interestingly, IMO-that perhaps those humans collecting seeds in our planted prairies could be likened to birds moving seeds around. I kind of liked that, even if I'm not sure I agree!

+om

There is a good discussion about this subject, with expert input, going right now on the FL Botany II FB page.

The historians say there is no mention of coconut trees by early settlers. Because of this they are said to be not native. The coconuts were here long before me so I'm inclined to say they are natives.

With the "world economy" who is to tell what is native in the distant future.

Craig

Tom, the only way I would liken people to birds and other animals in the area of seed spreading is if they only moved by foot and randomly dropped seed as they walked. But collecting seed from one place, flying in a plane to another part of the country or even another continent is about as far from 'natural spread' as you can get. The birds also wouldn't then change the soil to accommodate those seeds. I think Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals and other 'primitive' cultures are about as close as one could get since they often worked with Nature and not against her.

good points, Michael! I wish I would have thought of that repost in the other thread! So, foot travel only-no horseback, lol-when stealing seeds from our planted prairies! Tc, I would never suggest you must think in any certain way, but the mere existence of a plant species where you happen to live-but present there before you were around-does not constitute a good working definition of native. I think for most folks, true realization of the damage some of the worst exotic invaders are doing only comes with time, and the development of a love for the remnant patches of native vegetation. Prior to that, it's all just green stuff.

Back in the 1970's-yes I'm getting old-me and my bros were among the very first people in this area that got into cross-country skiing. Great times, I used to always notice this bush ot in the swamp-beautiful glossy bark, brilliant black berries in winter. I really thought it was cool. The a few years later, I noticed that plant everywhere I looked. It turned out to be-of course-common buckthorn, an absolute scourge. Once buckthorn invades a woods, that woods is doomed Nothing, not even maples, can grow in the shade and chemical assault of buckthorn. They were here before I was born. Surely that doesn't make them native plants.

+oM

I think we're diverging from the "What is Native" but that's fine by me. Here in Florida there is Native and Naturalized. In the case of Lantana involucrata (I think, it could be L. depressa), some naturalists are saying that it is not a true native, but a naturalized species that arrived here from islands in the Caribbean. The reason I am inclined to include it as a native is because I have yet to see an account where the plant was introduced by man. Some have traced it to a point of origin which was somewhere a little south of Tampa, but to me, that could just be where the first seeds dropped from migrating birds, unless documentation can be found suggesting otherwise. But unlike L. camara, Air Potato or Mexican Petunia, L. involucrata has worked itself into the natural order of things instead of completely choking out competing species. There are other more exotic plants that have also become naturalized into the wild landscape and through foraging animals or insects are more or less managed by nature. There are purists who think these should be eradicated just as much as the aggressive invasives, but in my mind, as long as it is filling a role and not removing others, then it isn't entirely a bad thing. It is like the case of the Firebush (Hamelia patens). There are some who are worried that this plant might be becoming hybridized with the South African 'dwarf' Firebush and while I understand the desire to keep 'true natives', if the hybridized version is not a bane on the natural environment, then the resulting plants could be considered a positive. This isn't a case of some person sitting in a lab (or shed) trying to force one plant to breed with another or grafting stems, this is nature saying, "Fine you wanted to have both, here is both in one. And look, the butterflies and hummingbirds can still nectar on it without adverse affects, unlike the sterile, nectar-lite, unapproachable 'doubles' you humans tend to make."