P.g. 'Cecilia' is awesome!!! Another one of my favorites is Calocedrus decurrens 'Berrima Gold'

hpersky: I think these are very different people with a lot of thing sin common. They see a problem, they adress this to a newcomer and the endresult is to get rid of all newcomers. The thing in Arizona reminded me very much of this argument. Over here I saw this documentary in which several people stated that these MExicans were dangerous and carried guns.....yes, may be....and how is that unique to Mexicans??? In The Netherlands, we have the same thing constantly now. Muslims are the problem of: hate against gays, are badly inegrated, are prolific, are agressive, are a threat to us, are the main cause of violence and theft etcetcetc. And it is all based on examples (tons of them) and it is believed by nowadays 20% of the voters. The facts are very different. But examples, pictures, are strong. Just like that kakapo...Which is not the victim of competition (like in plants, which we are discussing here) but by a predator and the kakapo does not live on a continent, but on an Island. I do not think a kakapo is worth more or less than a stout BTW. If we believe in Dawinism, than the kakapo is a victim of its lack to defend itself. No one is to blame. I LOVE all animals. In fact, I have helped young birds from predatory birds. Just because I consider myself a full part of nature and it is my instinct to protect the young, defensless bird. So too the kakapo: I think it is a very placid, lovely bird. It would be very difficult for me not to protect it when I saw it under attack. I wonder if people would think the same if a dangerous mosquito was under attack from a newcomer btw.... But is the kakapo really the victim of the stout. Did New Zealand nature flourish before invasive species came on the Island. This has been researched on almost all pcific islands: the population of almost all birds was dwindeling well before predatory mammals were introduced. It was...us! It were Polynesians for instance. Was the Moa killed by European mammals? No, it was not. And this is not just an example, this is the redline: the only invasive species which has had a constant impact on its own all over the world is us. Focussing on invasive species without taking this factor into account, is the same as what we do with immigrants blaming them for things caused by ourselves. Which we constantly do. The part of Europe and the uniqueness that is lost. Not a single part of Europe has an "ecosystem" that was not (heavily) modified by humans. So what caused this loss in "uniqueness"?? Invasive species? One thing is certain: never on their own. Besides: if you say that plants lose some traits, you have to be fair. The newcomers gain new traits. Fro instance: Sitkaspruce in Europe is now different from its American borthers and sisters. We now have European landraces and these are indeed protected. So yuo gain seomthing "unique". Another thing is that we also gain unique compositions never witnessed by modern man. For instance: in NW Europe you have woods constisting of more different trees than ever before. Like Tsuga-Abies-Picea-Pseudotsuga-Quercus-Fagus forests. If "unique" means something "good" than we win something and we lose something. But the words used by this sceintist are hardly scientific. They are trying to appealing to our emotions. "sSomething unique is lost!! Forever!"...They appeal to the fact that we do not want to use something of "value". Which is not scientific, as value is something personal. It is also single sided: it does not mention that we get something else back. It is like saying that we lose our culture, because our Dutch music gets lost, our language is heavlily influenced by English and changing rapidly our architecture is influenced by foreign artists etcetc. First of all, like in nature: this is nothing new! The Dutch language for instance is littered with germanisms. I repeat myself. If you only focus on what was, then you only lose something. If you look at everything, you must say that things change and you got something back. So the Dutch language and culture is in constant flux and like nature, more than ever! Ecologists are prone to attribute value to some things and not to others. So they mention losing something that is of value to them and they do not mention gaining something that is if no value or even undesirable. What is or what isn't desirable is a personal thing. Not something science can dictate or even prove. Almost all things we have lost when it comes to biodiversity, is lost because of habitatloss and hunting by us. It is rarely if ever lost by introductions of specieson continents and certainly not by competition. The introduction of species has lead to huge local increases in biodiversity and globally, because of a few losses mainly on Island by disease and predators, is going down. New species can provide valuable habitat for other speies, oldcomers or newcomers. And sometimes, we discover new species in introduced forests. Like in The Netherlands, wehre a totally new fungus (mushroom) was found in a forest of Pseudotsuga Menziesii...

A cultivar is not likely to become any more invasive than the native plant; they are, after all the same species and any genes available for sharing with the native plants will have already been in existence. From an ecological point of view, it depends what kind of cultivar is being planted. If the plants are vegetatively propagated then one has the debate about genetic diversity and maintaining a diversed gene pool. If selections of tetraploids, then the plants may be sterile and not a food source for seed eaters or the flowers may lack nectar for insects. In a large restoration project for a wild area, one would want to use unnamed, open pollinated seed to maximize the gene pool for sustainability. In a home garden, one is not relying on self seeded plants so diversity is not as important. As a native plant gardener,the "unimproved" versions of plants often have smaller flowers and are less predictable than the cultivars. This endears them to me, but traditional gardeners may prefer "better" plants. So I would rather see someone using a native cultivar than using a non native.

I was being bad. On one of the other threads someone was talking about only planting natives and mentioned milkweeds. Knowing there were only a few types that were native to that posters state I decided to look it up. There are only 3 milkweeds that are native to that area so I quess the person will either have to remove the non-native milkweeds or live with some non-native plants. They sounded like they had the idea that the only plant good plant for birds and other wildlife was a native plant. Problem is that although advertisers and books on natives don't bother to list where certain plants are native. They just list all of the plants for birds and other wildlife under the topic no matter where they are native. Which is where the "reality check" comes in. Rather than taking everything you read and hear as a hard fact somethings need to be researched. My non-native apple, cherry, and peach trees feed lots of animals and birds. I only occasionally get some fruit for my self.