For some reason the genus Eleodes is now marked as endemic to North America (which I didn’t think was possible since I thought on iNat taxa couldn’t be marked as endemic to a continent) and while this is correct for its native range, one species is invasive to Colombia is South America, which I would assume goes against the “only found in North America” thing. Any info is appreciate appreciated.
Endemic applies to the place it is native to not the places it can now be found due to humans moving it around, so it being found in South America as an invasive doesn’t negate it being endemic elsewhere. That being said, terms like ‘endemic’ really lose a lot of meaning when used over the scale of whole continents, endemic is usually used to refer to things only native to one mountain range, island, lake, something like that. Though I know iNat sometimes is set to display things as endemic to whole continents. By that logic why not mark everything endemic to Earth (as far as we know)?
9 Likes
Why are we able to set endemism to continents? That didn’t used to be possible, and it isn’t very useful information.
1 Like
why do you think that’s the case? Labelling something as endemic to Australia, for example, is not only useful, but also very commonplace.
2 Likes
This is my understanding too. Echium pininana is described as endemic to La Palma - even though you can find it as a garden escape in Cornwall, or Ireland, or France, or California.
Australia is fine I guess, but endemic to North America or Eurasia or Africa or South America or Oceania doesn’t really tell you anything meaningful.
1 Like
yeah i agree, Australia is kind of on the edge size wise but it’s got so many unique species I think endemic to Australia is somewhat meaningful. Though still kinda stretching the word. New Zealand it makes sense for sure.
1 Like
(But, you are a big island ;~) with many climates. Would it not be endemic to a part of Australia? Tasmania perhaps?
New Zealand tho stretches from North (similar to Cape Town) to way down South with glaciers @charlie . It is a long country.
1 Like
there are plenty of species with broad distributions across Australia, encompassing many states and regions, that are only found in Australia, and thus are endemic there. This applies across many different taxa, including birds, plants, etc
5 Likes
iNat displays this species as ‘endemic to Southern Africa’
but it is actually endemic to that slope above Simon’s Town - as displayed in the distribution map.
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/594464-Serruria-hirsuta
Endemic needs to be interpreted on taxon basis ?
The endemicism of South Africa is amazing, like i thought California had a lot of narrow endemics but it’s even more so in South Africa.
1 Like
I don’t think curators can do this, but some bugs make it happen:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/endemic-status-automatically-applied-to-continents/40079
How is North America defined for this purpose? North of Mexico?
Including all of Central America and the Caribbean!
2 Likes
So I guess the Knight Anole, endemic to Cuba, is endemic to North America as well even if it wasn’t introduced in Florida (which it is).
FWIW, on iNat Australia is a country-level place. Oceania is the continent-level parent place of Australia. So labeling something as endemic to Australia should work fine, functionality-wise.
I’m not a biologist but as layman “endemic” has always, to me, meant that something’s range is restricted to a small area, eg the many species endemic to Hawaii, where I grew up. Granted, ultra-isolated islands make that a much easier distinction to maintain than does a continent, but I feel like for continents (Australia excepted), it doesn’t seem to be a meaningful label.
5 Likes