Using the native/alien classification for description not prescription: A response to Christopher Preston

Progress in Human Geography

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 711-713

  Warren, Charles R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; INTRODUCED SPECIES; SPECIES CONSERVATION; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 70349641189     PISSN: 03091325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0309132509343376     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Davis, M.A. 2009: Invasion biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 244 pp.
2. Fortwangler, C. 2009: A place for the donkey: natives and aliens in the US Virgin Islands. Landscape Research 34, 205-22.
3. Gozlan, R.E. and Newton, A.C. 2009: Biological invasions: benefits versus risks. Science 324(5930), 1015.
4. Head, L. and Atchison, J. 2009: Cultural ecology: emerging human-plant geographies. Progress in Human Geography 33, 236-45.
5. Lees, A.C. and Bell, D.J. 2008: Conservation paradox for the 21st century: the European wild rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, an invasive alien and an endangered native species. Mammal Review 38, 304-20.
6. Mackey, B.G. 2008: Boundaries, data and conservation. Journal of Biogeography 35, 392-93.
7. Preston, C. 2009: The terms 'native' and 'alien' - a biogeographical perspective. Progress in Human Geography, DOI: 10.1177/0309132509105002.
8. Warren, C.R. 2007: Perspectives on the 'alien' versus 'native' species debate: a critique of concepts, language and practice. Progress in Human Geography 31, 427-46.