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