[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia - An infinite number of lists

[K P]

On 3/24/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at 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