MWP Quiz 26
Moderators: MWP admin, IL-PINE
MWP Quiz 26
It is not some red-haired crazy hippie
- Attachments
-
- RedHair.JPG (153.62 KiB) Viewed 125678 times
Where? I am not sure even that we have naturalised Eucalyptus, they seem to seed rarely and any resultant seedling sprouts before summer and dies. I know, we have about 30 massive eucalyptus in the street and about 6 australian pine planted in the dirt, and on one side there are abandoned fields, and in many many years I have only ONCE seen a eucalyptus seedling and never of the aust. pine.
Remember these were planted all over the countryside, valley sides, by authorities, and plenty planted by hunters too, but I have yet to see one which looked self-planted.
Remember these were planted all over the countryside, valley sides, by authorities, and plenty planted by hunters too, but I have yet to see one which looked self-planted.
I just wanted to give an example to mean it was found in what looks to be (but not sure) a patch of planted trees in the countryside including eucalyptus, other pines, and a giant Euphorbia melitensis(?) (1.5m high, 2m radius) which was growing in complete shade under these trees !
I dont know if this f this particular Casuarina specimen was planted by hunters or naturally dispersed. I was in the area, came across this tree, took a photo (=some photos
), kept walking around, arrived home, found out the species, and then , (->THEN<-) it resulted to be an alien and of some distribution importance.
For short, when I say wild, I dont mean anything specific as indigenous, naturalised, escape etc - I simply mean that it is not in public gardens, parks, private houses, roadsides, etc.
Just for you case study Dr. Watson!
I dont know if this f this particular Casuarina specimen was planted by hunters or naturally dispersed. I was in the area, came across this tree, took a photo (=some photos
), kept walking around, arrived home, found out the species, and then , (->THEN<-) it resulted to be an alien and of some distribution importance. For short, when I say wild, I dont mean anything specific as indigenous, naturalised, escape etc - I simply mean that it is not in public gardens, parks, private houses, roadsides, etc.
Just for you case study Dr. Watson!
It seems my definition of "wild" is somewhat non-standard
Generally I would think of wild as being "native" "indigenous" or if alien, at least self-regenerating, reproducing > "naturalised".
Thus Oxalis makes it to my "wild" list but always with the "naturalised invasive" descriptor.
I feel a bit unhappy about labelling any plant/tree that is not in a garden or field as "wild".
Because this means that if someone were to plant something ridiculous like a Scindapsus aureus or any other, possibly even hybridised, house plant variety underneath a carob tree, then this could be called "wild". Hell, I could even plant a Saguaro.
At least one could refer to this as "planted in the wild" or "growing in the wild" but "wild" alone is something that does not seem to me at least appropriate as a description.
BTW last night I happened to look up the australian pine in Weber's, and very interestingly he states that this is actually an angiosperm.
RB
Generally I would think of wild as being "native" "indigenous" or if alien, at least self-regenerating, reproducing > "naturalised".
Thus Oxalis makes it to my "wild" list but always with the "naturalised invasive" descriptor.
I feel a bit unhappy about labelling any plant/tree that is not in a garden or field as "wild".
Because this means that if someone were to plant something ridiculous like a Scindapsus aureus or any other, possibly even hybridised, house plant variety underneath a carob tree, then this could be called "wild". Hell, I could even plant a Saguaro.
At least one could refer to this as "planted in the wild" or "growing in the wild" but "wild" alone is something that does not seem to me at least appropriate as a description.
BTW last night I happened to look up the australian pine in Weber's, and very interestingly he states that this is actually an angiosperm.
RB
RB:
note that it was what I exactly said in the begining
It is difficult to draw the line for the real definition of "wild". I tried to explain what I meant by "found in the wild" as much as I could in this post and did not expect a case out of it! Maybe we start a discussion on the Open discussion topic instead this quiz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's more interesting was that I did not noticed that this tree was actually under angiosperms, despite the pine-looking gymnosperm appearance. Thanks and well done for the correct answer!
At least one could refer to this as "planted in the wild" or "growing in the wild" but "wild" alone is something that does not seem to me at least appropriate as a description.
note that it was what I exactly said in the begining
"but found in the wild"
It is difficult to draw the line for the real definition of "wild". I tried to explain what I meant by "found in the wild" as much as I could in this post and did not expect a case out of it! Maybe we start a discussion on the Open discussion topic instead this quiz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's more interesting was that I did not noticed that this tree was actually under angiosperms, despite the pine-looking gymnosperm appearance. Thanks and well done for the correct answer!
the definition is easy: planted is the opposite of wild. no matter if you plant it in a
pot or in Wied Babu its not wild as long as it does not escape. unfortunately this one does.
the confusion with the systematic standing of the tree is normal. even the name of one of the most commonly planted sp is C. equisetifolia.
sorry for my bad english mwp, but as you know i came to Malta to learn better english.
pot or in Wied Babu its not wild as long as it does not escape. unfortunately this one does.
the confusion with the systematic standing of the tree is normal. even the name of one of the most commonly planted sp is C. equisetifolia.
sorry for my bad english mwp, but as you know i came to Malta to learn better english.
I am the least that I can accuse someone for bad English 
I revise profiles 3-5 times and there are always Eng. mistakes. But let's face it, Scientists are not the fussy unless the communication is clear.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lets take an example:
I (MWP) buy an ornamental tree 'xyz' from a nursery and plant it in my garden.
1)
A bird picks some fruit from xyz, flies to his nest, drops the seeds in a garigue in the south and a plantlet of xyz grows there.
2) My friend Joe takes a cutting (or fruit) from my xyz, plant it in the garigue near his birdtrap in the North, and a plantlet of xyz grows there.
3) On a heavy thunderstorm some seeds of xyz are carried by rain to a valley in centre region of Malta. The lucky seeds stood on fertile soils and a plantlet of xyz grows there.
Years pass, the poor bird dies, Joe dies (halleluljah) and the birdtrap site goes to ruins, but the trees are growing fine.
A certain pensioner Sdravo (who finally got a sponsor from M____), while Mapping the Maltese flora, finds 'xyz' populations in the North and in the South garigues and in a valley side at central Malta.
MWP, now in his late 60s, ask Sdravko - "Which is wild?"
Thank you for reading the story!
I revise profiles 3-5 times and there are always Eng. mistakes. But let's face it, Scientists are not the fussy unless the communication is clear.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lets take an example:
I (MWP) buy an ornamental tree 'xyz' from a nursery and plant it in my garden.
1)
A bird picks some fruit from xyz, flies to his nest, drops the seeds in a garigue in the south and a plantlet of xyz grows there.
2) My friend Joe takes a cutting (or fruit) from my xyz, plant it in the garigue near his birdtrap in the North, and a plantlet of xyz grows there.
3) On a heavy thunderstorm some seeds of xyz are carried by rain to a valley in centre region of Malta. The lucky seeds stood on fertile soils and a plantlet of xyz grows there.
Years pass, the poor bird dies, Joe dies (halleluljah) and the birdtrap site goes to ruins, but the trees are growing fine.
A certain pensioner Sdravo (who finally got a sponsor from M____), while Mapping the Maltese flora, finds 'xyz' populations in the North and in the South garigues and in a valley side at central Malta.
MWP, now in his late 60s, ask Sdravko - "Which is wild?"
Thank you for reading the story!
Last edited by MWP admin on Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
well, since i know the story its easy to tell the answers.
the plant in your garden and the plant at joes bird trapping site are planted, so they are not wild. when the trapping site is abandoned but the plant continues to grow without propagating we usually refer to it as a 'relic of cultivation' like malus or musa in some valleys or coastal areas or like Anredera. (vines are a special chapter, they create such a mess of stems its hard to say which is a relic and which is propagating).
the plants dispersed by the bird and by the wind are wild. the fact that they might be alien, invasive or unwanted by someone bears no importance here.
so far the theory. but after some time its difficult to say which acacia was planted or which punica was brought by birds or by seed spitting hikers. so after 60 years your friend 'Sdravo' ( i will cripple your name in some publication, i promise
) might not be able to recognize which ind is wild and which not. he might well bring his axe to solve this academic problem forever and obtain some firewood (caves are cold).
the plant in your garden and the plant at joes bird trapping site are planted, so they are not wild. when the trapping site is abandoned but the plant continues to grow without propagating we usually refer to it as a 'relic of cultivation' like malus or musa in some valleys or coastal areas or like Anredera. (vines are a special chapter, they create such a mess of stems its hard to say which is a relic and which is propagating).
the plants dispersed by the bird and by the wind are wild. the fact that they might be alien, invasive or unwanted by someone bears no importance here.
so far the theory. but after some time its difficult to say which acacia was planted or which punica was brought by birds or by seed spitting hikers. so after 60 years your friend 'Sdravo' ( i will cripple your name in some publication, i promise
) might not be able to recognize which ind is wild and which not. he might well bring his axe to solve this academic problem forever and obtain some firewood (caves are cold).I agree with your explanation 100% and thank you for putting yourself in the scenario I created. For me it is easier to understand by example.
2 Other questions:
1)
If the tree that Joe planted propagtes itself to make a small population, will those offsprings be classified as wild (naturalised) or not ?
2)
If Joe had sown some seed instead planting a twig or cutting, will the new tree be considered wild then?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OK, fortunately and hopefully you comprehend my difficulty to determine if a tree (or plant) in the bare countryside can be classified as wild or not. Should it be anyone's difficulty afterall!?
So the Casuarina could be wild ! No one can know it got there (only by logic assumptions maybe). I have the feeling that several decades ago, there was no control and record of planted trees and plants, so it makes life of botanists much more difficult!
It was interesting to raise this question!
2 Other questions:
1)
If the tree that Joe planted propagtes itself to make a small population, will those offsprings be classified as wild (naturalised) or not ?
2)
If Joe had sown some seed instead planting a twig or cutting, will the new tree be considered wild then?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OK, fortunately and hopefully you comprehend my difficulty to determine if a tree (or plant) in the bare countryside can be classified as wild or not. Should it be anyone's difficulty afterall!?
So the Casuarina could be wild ! No one can know it got there (only by logic assumptions maybe). I have the feeling that several decades ago, there was no control and record of planted trees and plants, so it makes life of botanists much more difficult!
It was interesting to raise this question!
ok, i amend my definition. if its planted or sown its not wild.
if a planted or sown plant propagates by itself and if its offspring creates offspring of its own its classified as naturalized. the theory is quite simple but try to proove which is the offspring of the offspring of the tree your deceased friend planted. take suckers or plants which propagate by broken joints like cacti and you can get crazy (although you need to be crazy to begin with if you became a botanist).
as you sayd, not everybody keeps records of what is planted so often we have to guess. if you take old plants in walls with a lot of seeds and young plants around them and then you call the sp naturalized you are on the safe side. if you are not lucky enough to get a wall (a purely hypothetic situation in Malta) you should always exclude the possibility of the pop being planted or decide if there is enough 'wild'
looking offspring to call the pop wild.
if a planted or sown plant propagates by itself and if its offspring creates offspring of its own its classified as naturalized. the theory is quite simple but try to proove which is the offspring of the offspring of the tree your deceased friend planted. take suckers or plants which propagate by broken joints like cacti and you can get crazy (although you need to be crazy to begin with if you became a botanist).
as you sayd, not everybody keeps records of what is planted so often we have to guess. if you take old plants in walls with a lot of seeds and young plants around them and then you call the sp naturalized you are on the safe side. if you are not lucky enough to get a wall (a purely hypothetic situation in Malta) you should always exclude the possibility of the pop being planted or decide if there is enough 'wild'
looking offspring to call the pop wild.One thing I find strange in the whole picture is that, as you exemplified, if Punica granatum is dispersed by Erithacus rubecula (robin) the new plant is considered as naturalised/wild while if it is 'dispersed' (spit or sown) by homo sapiens, then it is not wild . In my opinion both animal species are elligible dispersing vectors.
I would make the academic issue simple as this: Everything which grows by itself is in garigue, coastal areas, valleys and non public areas are WILD, those which grows in gardens, houses, land used for agriculture, etc or need to be taken care after (watering) are not wild. But I live in a much simplistic world!
I can undertsand how complex the argument can get into - so it's enough for this Semester
I would make the academic issue simple as this: Everything which grows by itself is in garigue, coastal areas, valleys and non public areas are WILD, those which grows in gardens, houses, land used for agriculture, etc or need to be taken care after (watering) are not wild. But I live in a much simplistic world!
I can undertsand how complex the argument can get into - so it's enough for this Semester