Posts: 485
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2006
Is the cattle egret native to the Americas?
A birder friend of mine says no. There appears to be broad agreement cattle egrets evolved in Africa, but debate about whether they were deliberately introduced to the Americas (like ostriches as part of the hat-plume industry --which was big business once upon a time-- or by ranchers to pick flies and other pests off cattle) or if they flew across the Atlantic on their own -perhaps carried along in front of a strong stream of air like that which sometimes carries red dust from Africa to South America.
"Even if they flew across the Atlantic on their own," she says, "it was in very recent times and they only survived and multiplied once they reached the Americas because people had previously brought over and introduced horses and cattle."
Her argument advocates that because the cattle egrets expanded in settings which humans had modified from their original environment then they cannot be considered native, since they had probably flown across the Atlantic many times before but never taken hold previously until human-introduced herds and clearing had modified the environment to prepare a niche for them to occupy.
I think it is a bit of a reach to make the latter assumption, but from what I've heard and observed agree cattle egrets are truly native to the Mediterranean region and have only recently expanded, vastly, in range elsewhere around the plant -most often (as in Hawaii) because of deliberate introduction in association with cattle.
Does anyone know if cattle egrets have been observed eating coqui frogs?
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Pres. John Adams, Scholar and Statesman
"There's a scientific reason to be concerned and there's a scientific reason to push for action. But there's no scientific reason to despair."
NASA climate analyst Gavin Schmidt
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
Astonishing skill! This archer is a real-life Legolas and then some!
http://geekologie.com/2013/11/real-life-...rs-anc.php
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
Posts: 1,243
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2008
I have no idea if they are native to N. America or not, but they have been around since I was a little kid and that was a long time ago!:-)
Interesting question Oink!
Aloha au i Hawai`i,
devany
www.myhawaiianhome.blogspot.com
www.eastbaypotters.blogspot.com
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
Early Polynesian Settlers had to bring in several species of plants and animals in order to sustain their new existence.
They also inadvertently brought things that they didn't want. RATs...
There were no Mosquitoes. Must have been nice to sleep anywhere without being bitten. Mosquitoes got here by way of merchant ships. I believe they were first introduced in Lahaina...
Before human contact a new species was introduced only every 20K years.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
Not to throw a monkey wrench in the concept of natives versus non natives. But don’t all non natives at some point become naturalized?. The tree that arrived 6000 years ago as opposed to one that arrived 2500 years ago are both “natives” If discovered by newly arrived man from Polynesia or by sea captains or colonizers masquerading as missionaries at the turn of the century. I think the term "invasive" as used in Hawaii refers to the hand of man being involved rather than tides or wind.
Posts: 1,062
Threads: 43
Joined: Apr 2009
I would say that if anything is brought here by accident, or for an ill advised reason, then it is invasive. Even if it was wanted here, but it harms the native species, or threatens the extinction of the entire ecosystem, then I would have to declare it invasive. However, if it was brought here on one person's desire, even if it doesn't harm the natural environment, then it is invasive.
[?]What do you think[?]
~Aaron J. Dugan~
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
The definition I have always been taught is #3
“The third definition is an expansion of the first and defines an invasive species as a widespread non-indigenous species”
from wikipedia - seems to widen the question rather than narrow it - grin;
Invasive species is a phrase with several definitions. The first definition expresses the phrase in terms of non-indigenous species (e.g. plants or animals) that adversely affect the habitats they invade economically, environmentally or ecologically. It has been used in this sense by government organizations[1][2] as well as conservation groups such as the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature).[3]
The second definition broadens the boundaries to include both native and non-native species that heavily colonize a particular habitat.[3]
The third definition is an expansion of the first and defines an invasive species as a widespread non-indigenous species.[3] This last definition is arguably too broad as not all non-indigenous species necessarily have an adverse effect on their adopted environment. An example of this broader use would include the claim that the common goldfish (Carassius auratus) is invasive. Although it is common outside its range globally, it almost never appears in harmful densities.[3]
Because of the ambiguity of its definition, the phrase invasive species is often criticized as an imprecise term within the field of ecology.[3] This article concerns the first two definitions; for the third, see introduced species.
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
Everyone looks around but still no one sees the big picture...
Everything and Everyone is from one thing. One creator.
The very earth. The Universe. Even empty space.
Mana is All.
life and death... Like God. It's everything...In everything.
Aloha, Love, Life, all things...even Death,
It's all connected.
We're all connected
Bugs and all....
Even Coqui Frogs.
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 2,481
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
Wikipedia had this to say about rats in Hawaii:
"In studying pre-contact archaeological sites in Hawaii, archaeologists have found that the concentration of the remains of rats associated with commoner households counted for three times the animal remains associated with elite households. The rat bones found in all sites are fragmented, burned and covered in carbonized material, indicating that rats were eaten as food. The greater occurrence of rat remains associated with commoner households may indicate that the elites of pre-contact Hawaii did not consume them as a matter of status or taste."
I have heard elsewhere that polynesians may have brought rats as food. Keep in mind that there were no sewers and both rats and humans ate mostly plant matter so rats were not the foul creatures they are in the cities of today.
There is a theory that rats brought by the polynesians (accidentally or otherwise) began to wreak havoc amongst seabirds that lived on the islands. The impact on humans is that they often relied on seabirds returning to the islands to show them where the island was once they got within the last few dozen miles, while the island was not yet visible to humans. It is therefor possible that rats caused the ancient Hawaiians to stop making regular trips back and forth between Hawaii and Tahiti.
Rats are now considered invasive, but perhaps the early Hawaiians did not initially think so. The same could be said of pigs, which were also brought by early Hawaiians and are also now invasive.
