On 3/24/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But you didn't request the wording for a species native to Chicago and
X,
just one native to Chicago. And there is a word for that. IF you have
two
small endemic populations, there is generally a reason for that, namely
the
species was once more widespread and has been extirpated from elsewhere
in
between, in which case its distribution is relictual and it IS properly called an endemic, just not of Chicago alone, but of the larger area, or
it
has been introduced in the second place, in which case it can still be endemic to the first, or it is actively speciating due to a founder floundering there, or its endemism is edaphic, or otherwise than geographically defined.
Endemism is the word.
"Endemic to X" means "native to only X", which is not what I was looking for. I was looking for a way to say "Native to X but not all of Y" where X is a subregion of Y. The region an animal is endemic to is not usually a region that would get a list in the "Animals native to X" collection, so it would have to appear on multiple lists, or on one more general list (which loses precision).
It's rather difficult to understand what you're asking, because BY definition, endemic to Chicago means it is native to Chicago, and means it is NOT native to the rest of the USA. Do you have an example animal here that is not endemic to Chicago, but is native to Chicago but not all of the USA? "Native to only X but not all of Y," if Y is not a subset of X, and if X is a subset of Y, is endemism, nothing else.
KP