Abstrakt
Pereyra (2019) discusses several problems arising from the designation of a species' native range, the definition of which seems straightforward but , as he demonstrates, has limitations. His interesting and thought-provoking argument could point to conceptual or technical challenges in ecological theory and help remedy them.
Unfortunately, Pereyra inadequately jumps from particular issues in the definition of native range to dismissal of the concept itself to questioning an entire research field that uses it, invasion biology. In essence, Pereyra's essay is articulated along flawed logical reasoning.
The definition of nativeness is unclear; therefore, the concept of nativeness is also unclear and the concept of non-nativeness is unclear by symmetrical reasoning. Consequently, a discipline based on non-nativeness is open to question.
We argue that each of these 4 points and the logical links between them are flawed. Moreover, Pereyra's essay is based on errors in reasoning, a misleading selection of examples, incorrect citations, and sophisms and logic fallacies that are unfortunate in the context of the increase in denial of invasion biology (Russell & Blackburn 2017; Ricciardi & Ryan 2018).