John Peter Thompson of the Behnkes Nursery
family wrote to me that he’d noticed a flurry of listserv excitement
lately about the "supposed invasiveness" of flowering cherries.
did an in-depth on-line mini research project and think your readers
might like the varietal listings and references, and note that I cannot
find substantiated information on the invasiveness of cherries with the
exception of reported sighting in the Potomac Gorge of the autumn
to John Peter’s post. Even if the varietal listings are too
plant-geeky for you, his introductory discussion of the current messy
state of definitions is a good one. I should add that he’s rather a
big-shot in the world of Invasive Species Councils, both nationally and
at the state level.
NOT NATIVE ENOUGH
This is a great thread! One of my pet peeves has become being a party-pooper,
essentially, about native plant sales. "Native" is not well-defined,
much like "natural" processed foods in the grocery store. At many
native plant sales I have been to, I would say 90% of the plants for
sale are not what I would call "native": They are native cultivars or are native to the west coast, for example, and not native to the region/physiographic province where the sale is held. And I have seen a lot of mislabeled plants, as well.
I think native cultivars
(or native hybrids mass-produced by people, if that’s what some would
rather call them) should be labeled as such. And if you are going to
sell your wares as native, then you should state the USDA region of
your seed/root stock source. Otherwise, the "native" plants are no
better than snake oil, in my mind.
God knows I agree
with this writer’s complaint about plants native to somewhere else in
the U.S. being sold as "native." But unless the goal is preservation
of an endangered species, I don’t get the objection to cultivars, which
often perform better in the disturbed, nonnative soil that most of us
have to call our gardens.