Would a new name for "Indigenous Plants" make it more active

Well I am sorry, but that list is not very complete at all, I don't know about the other states but Texas surely has one, Lupinus texensis, and it doesn't show it.

Texas counts all native Lupines as the state flower. They just don't call it a "wildflower", though. That site has lists of each, floral emblem, wildflower, flower, and cultivated flower (!? TN...) It's splitting hairs I guess, but that's what they call 'em.

http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flowers/tx_bluebonnet.htm

This message was edited Feb 27, 2008 8:57 PM

http://www.lsjunction.com/flower.htm

claypa - sorry but we sure dont - only the bluebonnet.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/online/2005/read/level5/level5reading.htm#battle

That is from a TAKS test - here is the state web site http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/symbols.html - all types of bluebonnets - if blue - are the official state flower.

http://www.wildflower.org/expert/show.php?id=1801

From the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center's site:

"Lupinus texensis (Texas bluebonnet), Lupinus subcarnosus (Texas bluebonnet), Lupinus plattensis (Nebraska lupine), Lupinus perennis (sundial lupine), Lupinus havardii (Big Bend bluebonnet) and Lupinus concinnus (bajada lupine) are all native to Texas and thus, are each the official state flower of Texas. If the species Lupinus caudatus (tailcup lupine), which is occasionally found growing in Texas, is determined to be a native then it will be included among the “State Flower” members."

Lupinus concinnus is red and purple!

http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=LUCO

From that image I am not sure how you would tell the color... they have so many good ones on there that one is a little sad - but being a school teacher here I can tell you the papers we get each year to teach the kids from the state only the blue colored bluebonnets word, There is a bright red texensis that is for the Alamo and the blood shed there but not the state symbol.

lol. are we having another "discussion" here? because i'm not really getting this one either. bluebonnets are native to texas. there are several varieties that are native. the legislature of texas...when was it again...1971?...restated that all native lupins are included as the state flower. but still only NATIVE lupins. i think they forgot to tell texans about this though and it just might be that these are fightin' words to a real texan. reckon? lol.

Yes, and Lupinus texensis, is the one shown the most, because it is the most common and thereby the most popular.
http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=LUTE
Sooo Lovely.

hoo boy, I sure wasn't trying to mess with Texas!

Everything is good and fine, no problem here. Please come to the Native Plants and Wild Plants forum, and show us the the beautiful natives from you area of the world.
Josephine.

dang, josephine, you're lettin' him off too easy. let's get him. lol.

Terry,

From the looks of things, the thread is okay where it is - yes?

Well, technically it should go in "Invasive Plants" but it's not a big deal.

I think the intent of the thread fits with the native plants discussion, the Invasive plants forum is more about help in getting rid of things, and this person was hoping to grow a plant that they'd seen growing in the wild which is very much in the spirit of the native & wild plants forum. Yes, it was a plant that happens to be invasive in many areas of the country (though not all) and I think that point was made through people's responses, but the original poster didn't know about its invasiveness. And I don't think anyone was promoting planting it in an area where it would be a problem--some people pointed out that it is a problematic plant in many areas, and the people who had positive things to say about it live in areas where it wasn't a problem. Since the forum is not limited to discussion of natives, it's going to be hard to draw lines about what wild plants are OK to talk about and what aren't since things that are a big problem in some areas are perfectly well behaved in others.

Wonderfully said Ecrane. I think when a question about plant seen growing in the wild is posted it always fits the forum. Additionally if the plant happens to not be a native and/or happens to be potentially invasive it presents a wonderful opportunity for friendly discussion. I've learned much from such discussions and though I first was only interested in the "Wild Plants" forum because of plants I found growing in the wild I have now become very interested in native plants. I've learned things I never had a inkling about. Some things have become very important to me especially how some plants can damage the ecosystem and even cause harm to habitat for wildlife. I am now even replacing some potentially harmful plants in my own garden with natives that are beneficial to birds and other wildlife.

It appears that there is a strong tendency to forget that most plants are native somewhere!!

How long does a plant have to grow wild and free to be classed as a native? We here in the UK have plants that have been here for almost 2000 years that are not originally indigenous to these islands. They were brought by the Romans. Is 2000 years long enough to become native?

The world is not a sterile environment, and even without the intervention of man, things change over time.
Birds, winds, flotsam carry spores and seeds away from their original environment and on to another. Nature abhors a vacuum. A coral atol appears in the ocean, the waters beat the coral to sand. Birds, wind and tides play there part. Leaves fall and rot from the first plants, create a more fertile soil and new species can survive. The bare atol becomes a tropical island paradise, but non of its plants are "native".

Also climates change, not just due to mankind, and things that did well 1000 years ago find it too hot, cold, wet or dry now. Other plants take over. It is arrogant of man to feel he can freeze the world and change nothing!!

Here in the US we typically consider anything that was here before the European settlers to be native, and anything else that came since then is introduced. I'm not sure how people in other countries define what's native or not. But anyway, the native & wild plants forum is open to discussion of plants growing in the wild regardless of their native status, so it doesn't really matter how it's defined.

But you guys do understand that the main concern native plant enthusiasts had about renaming the forum from "Indigenous Plants" to "Native Plants and Wild Plants" was that the latter name implied wild, alien plants would become part of the forum's remit when they previously were not? And then the assurance was given that discussions of alien plants that have escaped into the wild would not be appropriate there, that the forum would still be about indigenous plants exclusively but would just have a more attractive name? To some of DG's native plant enthusiasts a change in this approach might seem like a bit of bait and switch, so I sincerely hope that it doesn't come to that.

I'm not interested here in trying to engage in a philosophical discussion about what is and is not a native plant or what the value of growing native plants is (I'm not a purist as it happens), but I do think it worth pointing out that there are some people who are interested in discussing plants native to North America specifically, that that is a legitimate topic of conversation, and that permitting widespread discussion of naturalized aliens within that forum could cause confusion.

Hopefully Terry will be along at some point to clarify, but my understanding from the discussion that happened when the name change occured is that any plant growing in the wild is fair game, regardless of whether it's native/indigenous or not. With the caveat of course that people shouldn't be promoting the planting of invasives. The whole story if I remember correctly is that the forum was originally called "Wild Plants" and being native was not at all necessary, then the name was changed to indigenous plants, but the intention even then wasn't to limit it to natives, it was just to make the native plant fans feel like it was an appropriate place to discuss natives. So recently when the forum was renamed to native & wild plants, the intention was that people who want to talk about growing natives are welcome to discuss that, but the forum is still not limited to natives since it really never was (although for those who only knew the forum when it was called indigenous plants I can see where the confusion could have come in) So it is a great place to discuss natives, and if that's all you're interested in then just make that clear in your threads. I've seen a ton of threads where people are discussing gardening with natives and I think that's great. But other discussions are allowed as well. If there was a little mis-step in the whole process, it was probably the point where the name was changed from wild plants to indigenous plants, because that made people think the forum was strictly for natives when that was never the intention. So the recent renaming to native & wild plants is more appropriate given the original intention of the forum.

Personally I'm a big fan of growing natives, and I don't have any problem with the discussions that have been going on recently in that forum, I feel that everyone's getting along well, the people who like natives are talking about natives, and the people who just like "wildflowers" are able to talk about that and become educated when they're interested in planting something that's potentially invasive. Things seem to be working fine so I don't see why there's a need to change anything.

I can't think of anything to add to ecrane's explanation and summary of the numerous name changes this forum has undergone; she's fully and accurately explained the history and the intent of the forum.

The only folks we might owe an apology for a "bait and switch" to would be those who asked for and helped build the forum for discussing all "wild plants" and then found themselves browbeat for talking about plants that aren't strictly native.

One final point, just to be sure we're all very clear: this forum is not and has never been considered exclusive to North America. All our members are welcome to use it to discuss the plants that grow uncultivated in their corner of the world ;o)