Coconut--an invasive pest plant in Queensland

[Yunder Wækraus]

Folks, there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing as a native organism, culture, or language. All that can be said in truth is that some things have arisen or arrived in some locales before others arose or arrived in the same locales. The obsession with "native" everything is part of the West's recent dalience with anticolonialism and self hate. It has nothing to do with science or reason. When a tree, such as the coconut in Florida, is brought to a new locale by humans, it is simply a case of one mobile organism dispersing another. In the same way, English is actually an indigenous language of North America: English speakers floated there on wooden structures from an adjacent land mass 400 years ago. And it's the same with possums in CA and pythons in the Everglades--things arrived in new locations NATURALLY and have thriven there thereafter. It makes me heartsick to see thr wantin destruction of beautiful creatures that is caused by thus ideology.

[Yunder Wækraus]

(I typed the above on my phone, and it wouldn't let me edit on that device. I'm still listed as a forum member despite having joined the IPS earlier this month. Please replace a portion of the above comment with the following: "....part of the West's recent dal[l]i[a]nce with...self[-]hate...heartsick to see th[e] want[o]n destruction of beautiful creatures that is caused by ths ideology.")

Edited June 10, 2015 by Yunder Wækraus

[Moose]

Folks, there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing as a native organism, culture, or language. All that can be said in truth is that some things have arisen or arrived in some locales before others arose or arrived in the same locales. The obsession with "native" everything is part of the West's recent dalience with anticolonialism and self hate. It has nothing to do with science or reason. When a tree, such as the coconut in Florida, is brought to a new locale by humans, it is simply a case of one mobile organism dispersing another. In the same way, English is actually an indigenous language of North America: English speakers floated there on wooden structures from an adjacent land mass 400 years ago. And it's the same with possums in CA and pythons in the Everglades--things arrived in new locations NATURALLY and have thriven there thereafter. It makes me heartsick to see thr wantin destruction of beautiful creatures that is caused by thus ideology.

From a perspective of age of a land, Florida is very young. Emerging from the oceans, many of the same plants we have here can be found on other Caribbean lands. If not the same species, at least from the same genera. Our native cycad, Zamia floridiana has many relatives spread around the islands. All of our native palms (with the exception of the needle palm, which is found in our northern areas) are represented in other areas of the Caribbean. It only seems logical that these plants have become naturalized here. Most likely dispersed by animals.

I do take exception to the pythons in the Everglades. The were introduced and quickly established themselves at the top of the food chain. It has no natural predator to keep it in check. But mother nature always seems to balance things out in the end. Its a recent introduction so mother nature has not established a check system yet. Some new bacteria could evolve and wipe the Pythons out.

Yes, we have our native Nazi's here as well. I'm all for native species but do not want to be told what I can and cannot plant on my own property. Especially when many of the natives are not exclusive to Florida. As far as Coconuts are concerned, I feel that they have become naturalized and should be considered semi-native. Supposedly the first Coconuts in Florida were established in Palm Beach County. They floated ashore from shipwreck that was transporting them probably as a food store / water supply. Since they were not intentionally introduced, I submit they are to be thought of as natives. After all, are we not animals too ... unless Darwin was wrong.

[Zeeth]

Moose: I've heard that some Florida growers consider any plant that's Caribbean to functionally be a Florida native, so I think you make a good point there. However, I don't think the wreck of the Providencia in 1878 brought the first coconuts to Florida. I've got a book called "A Culinary History of Florida" written by Joy Sheffield Harris. The important quote is as follows:

"In the mid 1800's, Major Robert Gamble established a 3,500 acre sugarcane plantation, now Gamble Plantation Historic State Park in Ellenton... Gamble noted in an agricultural circular of 1851, 'The fruit culture of my immediate district is confined to the production of oranges, lemons, limes, guavas, bananas, pineapples and cocoanuts.'". From pages 80-81 of the book.

Obviously if he wrote about this in 1851 they had already been there for some time, and even then it was already written 27 years before the Providencia wreck.

[Yunder Wækraus]

Folks, there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing as a native organism, culture, or language. All that can be said in truth is that some things have arisen or arrived in some locales before others arose or arrived in the same locales. The obsession with "native" everything is part of the West's recent dalience with anticolonialism and self hate. It has nothing to do with science or reason. When a tree, such as the coconut in Florida, is brought to a new locale by humans, it is simply a case of one mobile organism dispersing another. In the same way, English is actually an indigenous language of North America: English speakers floated there on wooden structures from an adjacent land mass 400 years ago. And it's the same with possums in CA and pythons in the Everglades--things arrived in new locations NATURALLY and have thriven there thereafter. It makes me heartsick to see thr wantin destruction of beautiful creatures that is caused by thus ideology.

From a perspective of age of a land, Florida is very young. Emerging from the oceans, many of the same plants we have here can be found on other Caribbean lands. If not the same species, at least from the same genera. Our native cycad, Zamia floridiana has many relatives spread around the islands. All of our native palms (with the exception of the needle palm, which is found in our northern areas) are represented in other areas of the Caribbean. It only seems logical that these plants have become naturalized here. Most likely dispersed by animals.

I do take exception to the pythons in the Everglades. The were introduced and quickly established themselves at the top of the food chain. It has no natural predator to keep it in check. But mother nature always seems to balance things out in the end. Its a recent introduction so mother nature has not established a check system yet. Some new bacteria could evolve and wipe the Pythons out.

Yes, we have our native Nazi's here as well. I'm all for native species but do not want to be told what I can and cannot plant on my own property. Especially when many of the natives are not exclusive to Florida. As far as Coconuts are concerned, I feel that they have become naturalized and should be considered semi-native. Supposedly the first Coconuts in Florida were established in Palm Beach County. They floated ashore from shipwreck that was transporting them probably as a food store / water supply. Since they were not intentionally introduced, I submit they are to be thought of as natives. After all, are we not animals too ... unless Darwin was wrong.

I think you're a victim of biologists' propoganda. Florida, as you know, is indeed a bit of land in constant transition. It was recently much larger, with a natural landscape more like that of the Yucatan, and it has been smaller, with only the highest points above water. It is an accident of history that we have no monkeys, boa constrictors, large iguanas, etc., "native" here. The green iguanas, monitor lizards, and pythons have taken hold in South Florida because they are filling an empty space in the natural order of things. The same pythons everyone is being told to hate in Florida are in danger of local extinctions across Asia. They are no threat to anything in the Everglades. In fact, they add greatly to the beauty and interest. I think that FL would be best served to increase their population and work on a thriving hunting season. No waterbirds will go extinct because of the pythons. And the gators will eat as many of them as they (the pythons) eat of the gators. (Note that the same waterfowl that are supposedly threatened by the existence of pythons in the Everglades are found alongside anacondas and large boas in Central and South America, and they ain't extinct there!)

[_Keith]

http://ellabayforever.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-coconut-palms-native-to-australia.html

[Zeeth]

Folks, there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing as a native organism, culture, or language. All that can be said in truth is that some things have arisen or arrived in some locales before others arose or arrived in the same locales. The obsession with "native" everything is part of the West's recent dalience with anticolonialism and self hate. It has nothing to do with science or reason. When a tree, such as the coconut in Florida, is brought to a new locale by humans, it is simply a case of one mobile organism dispersing another. In the same way, English is actually an indigenous language of North America: English speakers floated there on wooden structures from an adjacent land mass 400 years ago. And it's the same with possums in CA and pythons in the Everglades--things arrived in new locations NATURALLY and have thriven there thereafter. It makes me heartsick to see thr wantin destruction of beautiful creatures that is caused by thus ideology.

From a perspective of age of a land, Florida is very young. Emerging from the oceans, many of the same plants we have here can be found on other Caribbean lands. If not the same species, at least from the same genera. Our native cycad, Zamia floridiana has many relatives spread around the islands. All of our native palms (with the exception of the needle palm, which is found in our northern areas) are represented in other areas of the Caribbean. It only seems logical that these plants have become naturalized here. Most likely dispersed by animals.

I do take exception to the pythons in the Everglades. The were introduced and quickly established themselves at the top of the food chain. It has no natural predator to keep it in check. But mother nature always seems to balance things out in the end. Its a recent introduction so mother nature has not established a check system yet. Some new bacteria could evolve and wipe the Pythons out.

Yes, we have our native Nazi's here as well. I'm all for native species but do not want to be told what I can and cannot plant on my own property. Especially when many of the natives are not exclusive to Florida. As far as Coconuts are concerned, I feel that they have become naturalized and should be considered semi-native. Supposedly the first Coconuts in Florida were established in Palm Beach County. They floated ashore from shipwreck that was transporting them probably as a food store / water supply. Since they were not intentionally introduced, I submit they are to be thought of as natives. After all, are we not animals too ... unless Darwin was wrong.

I think you're a victim of biologists' propoganda. Florida, as you know, is indeed a bit of land in constant transition. It was recently much larger, with a natural landscape more like that of the Yucatan, and it has been smaller, with only the highest points above water. It is an accident of history that we have no monkeys, boa constrictors, large iguanas, etc., "native" here. The green iguanas, monitor lizards, and pythons have taken hold in South Florida because they are filling an empty space in the natural order of things. The same pythons everyone is being told to hate in Florida are in danger of local extinctions across Asia. They are no threat to anything in the Everglades. In fact, they add greatly to the beauty and interest. I think that FL would be best served to increase their population and work on a thriving hunting season. No waterbirds will go extinct because of the pythons. And the gators will eat as many of them as they (the pythons) eat of the gators. (Note that the same waterfowl that are supposedly threatened by the existence of pythons in the Everglades are found alongside anacondas and large boas in Central and South America, and they ain't extinct there!)

Do you have a source for your last point? Small mammal populations have been severely damaged by the pythons. These are also the main prey of the Florida panther, an extremely endangered animal. Here's a source for that:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/7/2418.short

I also think it's a little silly to say that biologists are using "propaganda" when talking about biology...

[Yunder Wækraus]

Folks, there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing as a native organism, culture, or language. All that can be said in truth is that some things have arisen or arrived in some locales before others arose or arrived in the same locales. The obsession with "native" everything is part of the West's recent dalience with anticolonialism and self hate. It has nothing to do with science or reason. When a tree, such as the coconut in Florida, is brought to a new locale by humans, it is simply a case of one mobile organism dispersing another. In the same way, English is actually an indigenous language of North America: English speakers floated there on wooden structures from an adjacent land mass 400 years ago. And it's the same with possums in CA and pythons in the Everglades--things arrived in new locations NATURALLY and have thriven there thereafter. It makes me heartsick to see thr wantin destruction of beautiful creatures that is caused by thus ideology.

From a perspective of age of a land, Florida is very young. Emerging from the oceans, many of the same plants we have here can be found on other Caribbean lands. If not the same species, at least from the same genera. Our native cycad, Zamia floridiana has many relatives spread around the islands. All of our native palms (with the exception of the needle palm, which is found in our northern areas) are represented in other areas of the Caribbean. It only seems logical that these plants have become naturalized here. Most likely dispersed by animals.

I do take exception to the pythons in the Everglades. The were introduced and quickly established themselves at the top of the food chain. It has no natural predator to keep it in check. But mother nature always seems to balance things out in the end. Its a recent introduction so mother nature has not established a check system yet. Some new bacteria could evolve and wipe the Pythons out.

Yes, we have our native Nazi's here as well. I'm all for native species but do not want to be told what I can and cannot plant on my own property. Especially when many of the natives are not exclusive to Florida. As far as Coconuts are concerned, I feel that they have become naturalized and should be considered semi-native. Supposedly the first Coconuts in Florida were established in Palm Beach County. They floated ashore from shipwreck that was transporting them probably as a food store / water supply. Since they were not intentionally introduced, I submit they are to be thought of as natives. After all, are we not animals too ... unless Darwin was wrong.

I think you're a victim of biologists' propoganda. Florida, as you know, is indeed a bit of land in constant transition. It was recently much larger, with a natural landscape more like that of the Yucatan, and it has been smaller, with only the highest points above water. It is an accident of history that we have no monkeys, boa constrictors, large iguanas, etc., "native" here. The green iguanas, monitor lizards, and pythons have taken hold in South Florida because they are filling an empty space in the natural order of things. The same pythons everyone is being told to hate in Florida are in danger of local extinctions across Asia. They are no threat to anything in the Everglades. In fact, they add greatly to the beauty and interest. I think that FL would be best served to increase their population and work on a thriving hunting season. No waterbirds will go extinct because of the pythons. And the gators will eat as many of them as they (the pythons) eat of the gators. (Note that the same waterfowl that are supposedly threatened by the existence of pythons in the Everglades are found alongside anacondas and large boas in Central and South America, and they ain't extinct there!)

Do you have a source for your last point? Small mammal populations have been severely damaged by the pythons. These are also the main prey of the Florida panther, an extremely endangered animal. Here's a source for that:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/7/2418.short

I also think it's a little silly to say that biologists are using "propaganda" when talking about biology...

Well, as an academic myself, I have a healthy level of paranoia when it comes to other academics. So, yeah, I'll stick with "propoganda" :-) Regarding mammal populations: no, there's nothing that will go extinct on the mainland because of pythons. The Florida panther, which is nothing more than the very common cougar, is in zero danger. It's main issue is a bottleneck in S. Florida, and that's a problem that could be solved by moving a few breeding females north of the Okeechobee. Politics are the problem, not pythons. I don't care about this or that rodent on the Keys that no one but a biologist could prove is different from the mainland variety, but that's me. I understand the current ideology to categorize and maintain all species (even though the very definition of what is and is not a unique species in mammalian biology is far from settled) whether or not the specieis is charismatic. I don't share that ideology, but I respect the fact that others are very much devoted to it.

I swear that there is not one unique species that will suffer extinction because pythons are in Florida. Their existence is a non-issue. And I'm really glad they're there. Now, of course, it is the case that small islands or river systems with isolated flora and fauna suffer disproportionate losses due to exotics (e.g. brown tree snake in Guam or Mississippi sunfish species in the San Joaquin Delta), but that doesn't appy to Florida. And it doesn't apply to coconut palms.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Yunder Wækraus

[_Keith]

Folks, there is not now nor has there ever been such a thing as a native organism, culture, or language. All that can be said in truth is that some things have arisen or arrived in some locales before others arose or arrived in the same locales. The obsession with "native" everything is part of the West's recent dalience with anticolonialism and self hate. It has nothing to do with science or reason. When a tree, such as the coconut in Florida, is brought to a new locale by humans, it is simply a case of one mobile organism dispersing another. In the same way, English is actually an indigenous language of North America: English speakers floated there on wooden structures from an adjacent land mass 400 years ago. And it's the same with possums in CA and pythons in the Everglades--things arrived in new locations NATURALLY and have thriven there thereafter. It makes me heartsick to see thr wantin destruction of beautiful creatures that is caused by thus ideology.

From a perspective of age of a land, Florida is very young. Emerging from the oceans, many of the same plants we have here can be found on other Caribbean lands. If not the same species, at least from the same genera. Our native cycad, Zamia floridiana has many relatives spread around the islands. All of our native palms (with the exception of the needle palm, which is found in our northern areas) are represented in other areas of the Caribbean. It only seems logical that these plants have become naturalized here. Most likely dispersed by animals.

I do take exception to the pythons in the Everglades. The were introduced and quickly established themselves at the top of the food chain. It has no natural predator to keep it in check. But mother nature always seems to balance things out in the end. Its a recent introduction so mother nature has not established a check system yet. Some new bacteria could evolve and wipe the Pythons out.

Yes, we have our native Nazi's here as well. I'm all for native species but do not want to be told what I can and cannot plant on my own property. Especially when many of the natives are not exclusive to Florida. As far as Coconuts are concerned, I feel that they have become naturalized and should be considered semi-native. Supposedly the first Coconuts in Florida were established in Palm Beach County. They floated ashore from shipwreck that was transporting them probably as a food store / water supply. Since they were not intentionally introduced, I submit they are to be thought of as natives. After all, are we not animals too ... unless Darwin was wrong.

I think you're a victim of biologists' propoganda. Florida, as you know, is indeed a bit of land in constant transition. It was recently much larger, with a natural landscape more like that of the Yucatan, and it has been smaller, with only the highest points above water. It is an accident of history that we have no monkeys, boa constrictors, large iguanas, etc., "native" here. The green iguanas, monitor lizards, and pythons have taken hold in South Florida because they are filling an empty space in the natural order of things. The same pythons everyone is being told to hate in Florida are in danger of local extinctions across Asia. They are no threat to anything in the Everglades. In fact, they add greatly to the beauty and interest. I think that FL would be best served to increase their population and work on a thriving hunting season. No waterbirds will go extinct because of the pythons. And the gators will eat as many of them as they (the pythons) eat of the gators. (Note that the same waterfowl that are supposedly threatened by the existence of pythons in the Everglades are found alongside anacondas and large boas in Central and South America, and they ain't extinct there!)

Do you have a source for your last point? Small mammal populations have been severely damaged by the pythons. These are also the main prey of the Florida panther, an extremely endangered animal. Here's a source for that:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/7/2418.short

I also think it's a little silly to say that biologists are using "propaganda" when talking about biology...

Well, as an academic myself, I have a healthy level of paranoia when it comes to other academics. So, yeah, I'll stick with "propoganda" :-) Regarding mammal populations: no, there's nothing that will go extinct on the mainland because of pythons. The Florida panther, which is nothing more than the very common cougar, is in zero danger. It's main issue is a bottleneck in S. Florida, and that's a problem that could be solved by moving a few breeding females north of the Okeechobee. Politics are the problem, not pythons. I don't care about this or that rodent on the Keys that no one but a biologist could prove is different from the mainland variety, but that's me. I understand the current ideology to categorize and maintain all species (even though the very definition of what is and is not a unique species in mammalian biology is far from settled) whether or not the specieis is charismatic. I don't share that ideology, but I respect the fact that others are very much devoted to it.

I swear that there is not one unique species that will suffer extinction because pythons are in Florida. Their existence is a non-issue. And I'm really glad they're there. Now, of course, it is the case that small islands or river systems with isolated flora and fauna suffer disproportionate losses due to exotics (e.g. brown tree snake in Guam or Mississippi sunfish species in the San Joaquin Delta), but that doesn't appy to Florida. And it doesn't apply to coconut palms.

And who can really say if some of the geographically isolated species, by the very nature of their small numbers and what was left of their environment and existence, were not already on the evolutionary way out the door anyway. It is feasible that man might have only slightly expedited the inevitable.

[Yunder Wækraus]

Yeah, I agree. The man vs. nature dichotomy is a false one, and inevitable changes in climate, topography, and competing species will doom every species that has ever existed. So let's enjoy a nice coconut palm in the moment, and let's not worry about how and when it got there!

[Zeeth]

Well, as an academic myself, I have a healthy level of paranoia when it comes to other academics. So, yeah, I'll stick with "propoganda" :-) Regarding mammal populations: no, there's nothing that will go extinct on the mainland because of pythons. The Florida panther, which is nothing more than the very common cougar, is in zero danger. It's main issue is a bottleneck in S. Florida, and that's a problem that could be solved by moving a few breeding females north of the Okeechobee. Politics are the problem, not pythons. I don't care about this or that rodent on the Keys that no one but a biologist could prove is different from the mainland variety, but that's me. I understand the current ideology to categorize and maintain all species (even though the very definition of what is and is not a unique species in mammalian biology is far from settled) whether or not the specieis is charismatic. I don't share that ideology, but I respect the fact that others are very much devoted to it.

I swear that there is not one unique species that will suffer extinction because pythons are in Florida. Their existence is a non-issue. And I'm really glad they're there. Now, of course, it is the case that small islands or river systems with isolated flora and fauna suffer disproportionate losses due to exotics (e.g. brown tree snake in Guam or Mississippi sunfish species in the San Joaquin Delta), but that doesn't appy to Florida. And it doesn't apply to coconut palms.

Since you didn't say what type of academic you are, I am left to assume it's something with nothing to do with the hard sciences. Biologists have no reason to propagandize this subject. There are a number of exotic species in Florida. Some of them decrease the net biodiversity in the ecosystem, but some of them don't. Here's a list of species that are most likely to be impacted by presence of the python:

Lower Keys marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri), rice rat (Oryzomys palustris natator, Florida salt marsh vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli), Key Largo woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli), Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens), Everglade snail kite (Rosthrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), Light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis), Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus).

Here is a source for this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00621.x/full

You need a subscription to see the journal, but you're an academic, so you probably have that, right?

I'm still waiting for sources for any of your claims. I particularly am eager to see the one about nothing being under threat of extinction from the python. By the way, even if you assume that these are not distinct populations (which is an incorrect assumption), what's the plan if they locally go extinct? You can't just keep reintroducing them, as the original threat to their establishment is still present. The only conclusion is that their extinction reduces the net-biodiversity of the local population. This is the very definition of something harming the local ecosystem! I don't care if the pythons are a pretty animal. If they cause 10 other species to be removed from that ecosystem, then they're bad for the ecosystem! I don't know if you're familiar with the food-web or not, but removing a bunch of animals from an ecosystem impacts a bunch of other animals. There is the case to be made for other exotic animals improving the local ecosystem by increasing the net biodiversity (spectacled caiman, nanday parrot, etc), as they don't drive other species out of the habitat. This is definitely not the case with the pythons.

[Yunder Wækraus]

I am sorry if I offended you. I have a PhD in linguistics. You can access a free version of my dissertation by going to this site: www.wieldoc.org and clicking on the projects tab and then choosing Southern Pomo. Read a few hundred pages of it and then get back to me about hard sciences :-) To be clear, I am saying that the host of rodents an non-descript songbirds you listed are less charismatic than pythons, and their loss would cause no measurable harm to anyone but a handful of biologists who've bought into the PROPOGANDA regarding all species being equally important. The exceptions would be the snail kite and the Key deer, both of which I find charismatic. Neither of these species, however, is really in danger because of pythons. Tropical kites co-exist with large constictors throughout most of their range. And Key deer have more to fear from cars and dogs. Leave the pythons and coconuts alone! The world needs fewer rats and more pythons and coconuts ☺

[Tropicgardener]

_{Interesting how threads 'evolve'............... I thought this was about Cocos nucifera being either native or not native to Queensland (Australia)}

[tropicbreeze]

It does take the discussion that step further by raising a general question about the impact of non-native life forms on the "indigenous" ones. Though not many people would feel there's any issue with the impact of coconuts in a particular environment, unless they've had one fall on their head from a great height.

But I do find it particularly interesting that it takes a PhD in linguistics to be qualified to determine whether a particular life form is charismatic enough to warrant protection from extinction. I've always thought that sort of an assessment would be rather subjective, although admittedly I don't have the PhD in linguistics to back my views.

[Zeeth]

I am sorry if I offended you. I have a PhD in linguistics. You can access a free version of my dissertation by going to this site: www.wieldoc.org and clicking on the projects tab and then choosing Southern Pomo. Read a few hundred pages of it and then get back to me about hard sciences :-) To be clear, I am saying that the host of rodents an non-descript songbirds you listed are less charismatic than pythons, and their loss would cause no measurable harm to anyone but a handful of biologists who've bought into the PROPOGANDA regarding all species being equally important. The exceptions would be the snail kite and the Key deer, both of which I find charismatic. Neither of these species, however, is really in danger because of pythons. Tropical kites co-exist with large constictors throughout most of their range. And Key deer have more to fear from cars and dogs. Leave the pythons and coconuts alone! The world needs fewer rats and more pythons and coconuts ☺

So your field isn't relevant to the topic after all. My point on this is that the soft sciences are much more subjective than the hard sciences, not their difficulty (though if you're trying to intimidate me with the difficulty of your subject, try medical school). It's easy to see topics like this as equally subjective when there are so many different opinions in your own field. That isn't as much the case with hard sciences. I reiterate, the loss of other species WOULD cause measurable harm to the ecosystem, as they're an intricate part of the food web. You can't just kill all of the primary consumers in a habitat and expect everything to turn out fine!

[amazondk]

Many people believe that life itself did not originate on the planet Earth. It came in from space on comet or the like or was introduced simply by microbes floating around the galaxy. If that is the case nothing on Earth is native. Way back when I was at college my major was cultural geography. One of the main factors that are looked at is plant dispersal by humans as they move around the planet. Coconuts being very useful trees for humans would naturally be taken where humans could take them and in one form or another cultivated or enhanced their numbers due to their usefulness.

As to pythons in Florida I guess we will see what happens as it appears doubtful that they will go away.

[empireo22]

don't worry another 89' freeze event will take care of the pythons and the coconuts. 2 birds one stone. its a win-win for the environmentalist.

[_Keith]

So, a Pre-Med student and a Linguist with a Pd.D walk into a bar full of Burmese Pythons,,,,,,,,,,

[Brad Mondel]

Regardless of anyone's opinion, Plants and animals that are spread by humans are inevitable. They have been traded for thousands of years. For example, the weeping willow (Salix Babylonica) was traded and sold in routes from Asia to the rest of the world. Nerium Oleander is so widespread its origins are unknown, just like the Coconut. Almost everyone's yard has an introduced or exotic species. Humans like creating their own environment with their favorite plants. Nothing wrong with that.

However, invasive species such as the Bittersweet vine (Celastrus orbiculatus) outcompete, choke, and destroy native plants. They become the dominant species in forests. I remember back at home in the Appalachian Mountains the vine was so thick and widespread it was the only thing you could see in the forest. This is why people are afraid of invasives. When they actually alter the local ecosystem to the point where it's unrecognizable it changes the entire ecology of the land that has existed for millennia beforehand.

[JasminInYarpshire]

_{Interesting how threads 'evolve'............... I thought this was about Cocos nucifera being either native or not native to Queensland (Australia)}

Honestly, I'll eat my proverbial hat if someone can prove that Cocos Nucifera is not a "natural" species of the QLD (i.e. not introduced by recent human activity). Since Nucifera occurs widely in PNG and Indonesia, as well as Vanuatu and the Solomons - and coconuts carry very well in the ocean, I don't see how it *can't* be.

Yes, it is true their range in Australia has been extended by recent human activity - there is no way you would "naturally" get cocos growing in south-east QLD, north NSW or the western coast of WA, but since the original concerns were expressed for the QLD wet tropics, the argument that Cocos is an alien species borders on the absurd.

[Jonathan]

I'd have to agree completely with that Jasmin...there are wild coconuts growing all over the coastlines of SE Asia and the Pacific, and in wild parts of Qld like the Daintree coast and Cape York.

Very hard to imagine that anyone introduced them to ALL of those places?

As to this:

"I am sorry if I offended you. I have a PhD in linguistics. You can access a free version of my dissertation by going to this site: www.wieldoc.org and clicking on the projects tab and then choosing Southern Pomo. Read a few hundred pages of it and then get back to me about hard sciences :-) To be clear, I am saying that the host of rodents an non-descript songbirds you listed are less charismatic than pythons, and their loss would cause no measurable harm to anyone but a handful of biologists who've bought into the PROPOGANDA regarding all species being equally important. The exceptions would be the snail kite and the Key deer, both of which I find charismatic. Neither of these species, however, is really in danger because of pythons. Tropical kites co-exist with large constictors throughout most of their range. And Key deer have more to fear from cars and dogs. Leave the pythons and coconuts alone! The world needs fewer rats and more pythons and coconuts ☺"

The above quote is, to my mind, one of the most obnoxious, pretentious and egoistic statements that I've ever seen on this forum, and encapsulates in one ugly paragraph why humanity probably wont have a planet worth inhabiting in a few hundred years, and frankly, probably doesn't deserve to have one. It's just a pity that so many other unique and beautiful (and nondescript) species are going to go down with the ship.

Ask yourself whether you are 'charismatic' enough to deserve a place in the world - or whether you're just just a self serving hypocrite?

Cheers,

Jonathan

[Zeeth]

So, a Pre-Med student and a Linguist with a Pd.D walk into a bar full of Burmese Pythons,,,,,,,,,,

Hey I'm a med student now.

[_Keith]

So, a Pre-Med student and a Linguist with a Pd.D walk into a bar full of Burmese Pythons,,,,,,,,,,

Hey I'm a med student now.

I stand corrected. Just trying to inject a little levity into the situation.

[amazondk]

So, a Pre-Med student and a Linguist with a Pd.D walk into a bar full of Burmese Pythons,,,,,,,,,,

Hey I'm a med student now.

IMG_20150520_122300557_HDR.jpg

Are the pythons dancing?

[Tyrone]

Wow. This thread went completely nuts.

[Mr. Coconut Palm]

Logic would tell you that the coconut palm IS native to northern tropical Australia, since it has existed as long as mankind has kept records on the islands of the Great Barrier Reef and along the coasts of New Guinea and Indonesia as stated above. Yes, mankind has spread the coconut palm into areas of Australia that it did not grow naturally beforehand, but to say that the species did not exist in well established natural coastal communities of tropical northern Australia before mankind planted them there is ABSURD, AND DEFIES REASON!

[Pedro 65]

Wow. This thread went completely nuts.

It sure did.

Thought I'd post a few pics ( off the net) of "how beautiful" Cape Tribulation is, and when you come out the the very thick and thriving Rainforest of the Daintree Nat Pk which includes Cape tribulation the Coconut Palms are a "Very Welcome Sight" and they are on the "beach" certainly not overtaking the pristine Rainforest of FNQ.

Pete

[JasminInYarpshire]

Wow. This thread went completely nuts.

It sure did.

Thought I'd post a few pics ( off the net) of "how beautiful" Cape Tribulation is, and when you come out the the very thick and thriving Rainforest of the Daintree Nat Pk which includes Cape tribulation the Coconut Palms are a "Very Welcome Sight" and they are on the "beach" certainly not overtaking the pristine Rainforest of FNQ.

Pete

Gorgeous place. Can't wait to visit Cape Trib and Daintree. Can't help thinking it'd be just that much nicer without all those invasive weeds clogging up the beach though!

[Tropicgardener]

Well get here quick Jasmin............... The Nazi's are circling in my area (The Whitsundays)......... I fear many of our local tropical beaches will be without Coconut Palms soon.

[tropicbreeze]

Logic would tell you that the coconut palm IS native to northern tropical Australia, since it has existed as long as mankind has kept records on the islands of the Great Barrier Reef and along the coasts of New Guinea and Indonesia as stated above. Yes, mankind has spread the coconut palm into areas of Australia that it did not grow naturally beforehand, but to say that the species did not exist in well established natural coastal communities of tropical northern Australia before mankind planted them there is ABSURD, AND DEFIES REASON!

That's a bit too simplistic. If it were as straight forward as that the whole northern and north eastern coastlines of australia would be covered with forests of coconuts. But they weren't. There were a few things against coconuts being able to establish themselves effectively. The local Hermit Crabs were one of the destructive factors when it came to coconuts. They absolutely love them and rapidly strip seedlings. Termites are another factor. Some species, especially Mastotermes darwiniensis, will destroy any size coconut tree. So what might have got past the Hermit Crabs then faces the termites. So you need an environment that has been cleared of termites and made hostile to Hermit Crabs. That only came with Europeans. Native Bush Rats chew into germinating coconuts bringing about a quick end. Previously there were few niches where coconuts weren't subject to those kinds of predation. And 'palm cabbage' was also part of the diet of the hunter gatherer indigenous population. Another big negative.

If plants (seeds) drift up to land but fail to establish a self reproducing population they can't really be considered a native plant of that land. Europeans brought about conditions that made it possible for coconuts to proliferate in Australia, especially on the mainland. But no one seems to reliably know where they might have effectively established themselves anywhere, or even on any of the offshore islands. The only argument supporting that possibility appears to be that "it's logical". But it's not really. It is more in the realms of "possibility".

Photo of coconuts I took near Cape Trib recently.

Photo of coconuts on Hinchinbrook Island I took not so recently.

[Moose]

Curious why it would be thought of by some as an invasive if it has only established itself in niche habitats. Furthermore, if there are predators that keep the palm in check, that could be speculative evidence that it is a native. Or at least been present in the area for a very long time as mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Dave-Vero]

Congrats, Zeeth. Here's a Canberra resident who bodyboards in Tasmania who would like to be a medical student.

Now, back to subject, it's impressive that so many critters eat coconuts in one way or another.

[tropicbreeze]

Curious why it would be thought of by some as an invasive if it has only established itself in niche habitats. Furthermore, if there are predators that keep the palm in check, that could be speculative evidence that it is a native. Or at least been present in the area for a very long time as mentioned earlier in the thread.

As the saying goes, "Consistency is the curse of the commonplace".

Cattle Egret, Ardea ibis, made their own way into Australia on ships only last century. Monarch Butterflies, Danaus plexippus, moved in not much earlier. There's never been any great arguments about their presence here, nor big eradication programs initiated. Only the humble Coconut seems to evoke that sort of strong passion, to either exterminate it, or to nurture it.

Fossil evidence does suggest an Australian and Indian origin for coconuts, which should be no surprise as both formed part of Gondwana Land. But apparently genetically there's no distinct Australian type now, the plants here have origins elsewhere. So the Australian branch of the (ancestral) family tree must have died out. The possibility of arrival of drifting seeds over a very long period of time must be high, due to the land's proximity to where coconuts did proliferate and their method of natural dispersal. So basically, coconuts must have been drifting ashore in Australia from the time they first 'bought into beachside real estate'.

[Yunder Wækraus]

I'd have to agree completely with that Jasmin...there are wild coconuts growing all over the coastlines of SE Asia and the Pacific, and in wild parts of Qld like the Daintree coast and Cape York.

Very hard to imagine that anyone introduced them to ALL of those places?

As to this:

"I am sorry if I offended you. I have a PhD in linguistics. You can access a free version of my dissertation by going to this site: www.wieldoc.org and clicking on the projects tab and then choosing Southern Pomo. Read a few hundred pages of it and then get back to me about hard sciences :-) To be clear, I am saying that the host of rodents an non-descript songbirds you listed are less charismatic than pythons, and their loss would cause no measurable harm to anyone but a handful of biologists who've bought into the PROPOGANDA regarding all species being equally important. The exceptions would be the snail kite and the Key deer, both of which I find charismatic. Neither of these species, however, is really in danger because of pythons. Tropical kites co-exist with large constictors throughout most of their range. And Key deer have more to fear from cars and dogs. Leave the pythons and coconuts alone! The world needs fewer rats and more pythons and coconuts ☺"

The above quote is, to my mind, one of the most obnoxious, pretentious and egoistic statements that I've ever seen on this forum, and encapsulates in one ugly paragraph why humanity probably wont have a planet worth inhabiting in a few hundred years, and frankly, probably doesn't deserve to have one. It's just a pity that so many other unique and beautiful (and nondescript) species are going to go down with the ship.

Ask yourself whether you are 'charismatic' enough to deserve a place in the world - or whether you're just just a self serving hypocrite?

Cheers,

Jonathan

Wow :-(

I had hoped that some folks on this forum would be aware that the term "charismatic" is used by wildlife advocates for species which members of the public find appealing (e.g. panda, manatee, koala, redwood, dolphins, etc.). It is not a term I coined.

I do not view the public's value judgments regarding the relative value of various species as a thing without merit. I do think that some species are more interesting and/or useful to humans than others. I am consistent with this view in my personal and public life, so I don't think the insulting term "hypocrite" applies here. And I'm not sure why there is a need to use insulting language.

I should hope you understand that different humans have different opinions. Many such folks have been known to hold opinions you do not share, and I'm told they have done so without being termed "self-serving hypocrites." I don't see how having beautiful, useful trees and interesting megafauna such as pythons might result in a missing earth. Will pocket voles and woodrats now found only in specific island locales save our earth? If so, how and why?

The real issue here is a philosophical one. One side believes that man and nature are separated by an imaginary line, and that all species are equally worthy of mankind's protection, and that all species have their own ecosystems out of which they should not be permitted to leave. And all the biology degrees in the world won't provide the tools to address the fundamental issues here: these matters are purely cultural and have nothing to do with big data or laboratories.

I know what I think, and I have never been hypocritical about it: I want more megafauna in more places, and I like beautiful trees and flowers. I'm not opposed to less-charismatic critters such as worms, and mice, and pigeons. But I'm not going to cut down a grove of palm trees or kill off the world's longest snake because the current philosophy dictates that a pocket vole is inherently as valuable to humanity as an elephant. And it's okay if you disagree with me.

[Jonathan]

I do disagree with you - completely and wholeheartedly.

You are of course entitled to believe whatever your moral outlook allows, I cant stop you, but that doesn't mean that your opinions should go unchallenged.

Judging a species right to exist by it's appearance or it's short term worth to humanity speaks to me of a pretty stunted philosophical outlook and a very limited understanding of ecological dynamics.

Loss of biodiversity, compounded by climate change, is The Big Problem of the age...isn't it? I think you'll find that nearly every creditable scientist on the planet would agree with me on that.

If we were to push your philosophy to it's limit state, we'd end up in a world full of only the things that you like - pythons and palm trees maybe - and that wouldn't suit me or many other living organisms in the long run.

A diverse biological system has natural resilience and adaptability due to it's large genetic variability, this is Biology 101 - the world you're canvassing relies on the management skills of one species of self interested yet strangely self destructive apes, whose track record to date does not make pretty reading.

I believe that there is not and inherently can not be a divide between humanity and nature, and that "all species have their own ecosystems" in which they should be permitted to live.

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Jonathan

[Brad Mondel]

No person with any scientific authority or education would condone extinction of any kind just because they view an introduced species as a novelty.

It's a good thing too, or else living things would be dying off at an even faster rate than what they are now. I'm glad scientists are better than that.