A quick lesson on why I use botanical names:
Many plants share the same common names regardless of origin. Before I started doing so, I'd made the mistake of purchasing a plant under the impression that it was native, only to find out that it was an exotic species. At first they seem overwhelming to learn, but if you force yourself to refer to the plants by their botanical names instead of common names, each one becomes easier to remember. If you just focus on the genus, then you'll notice the similarities between individual species. If you learn by family, you start to notice the shared patterns between the genera within it. Botanical names often describe an aspect of the plant, which helps with remembering their names. In due time, you develop a deeper understanding of botany and the plants you grow, just because of what you call them.

These are not "Latin names," because some of the names originate from other languages, often Greek.

Another word of caution, if you see the epithet americana in the name, do not assume it is native origin. There is a hybrid honeysuckle Lonicera x americana, but both parents of this hybrid are European in origin. Always research hybrid names when you find them. This is another reason why it is good to learn scientific or botanical names.  

---

Common Questions or Misconceptions About Nativars

---

When it comes to nativars, the answer is “it depends.” I always recommend looking up the plant and finding information about it. Mt. Cuba is a great place to start.

I was told cultivars or nativars aren’t native?

Nativity has nothing to do with how the plant ended up in the nursery. Native has to do with the origin of the species that the plant is a member of. It may not be a wild or straight species, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t native. Nativar specifically refers to cultivars of native origin.

Cultivars can be native or exotic, and often you’ll see cultivar to mean anything from a cultivated origin. In this case you would need to do your research about the origin of the cultivar. If you know botanical names, this is fairly straightforward. If a cultivar has exotic or hybrid origins, it is no longer a nativar (or native). By hybrid origins, here I am referring to a hybrid between a native and exotic species. There are native hybrids that occur naturally in the wild. A hybrid, on its own, does not mean it was created by humans.

I’ve heard nativars produce a lower quality food source than straight species.

I am unaware of any studies that have analyzed the nutritional value of nativars versus straight species. Please contact me if you have a scientific paper that has published this information. If you know of a lab doing this, let me know.

Simply observing the activity of pollinators on a plant does not designate nutritional value. It could be nature’s equivalent to junk food. The reverse is also true. Maybe there is “junk food” nearby that is more attractive. Junk food is like setting out a bowl of sugar water. They love it, but it doesn’t mean it has everything they need (like sodium).

Nativars come from a mix of ecotypes and would muddy the local gene pool.

That’s possible, but I’m not sure how important it is. If the idea is that an ecotype is better suited to growing in a location than from outside that location, any plants that don’t do well would simply die out? They wouldn’t live long enough to pass on inferior genetics. Real world experience has shown that sowing seed from another location hasn’t shown to be a problem. If a nativar is shown to be disease resistant, it could arguably help the population survive by cross-pollinating with it.

“The grower can accumulate every clone available and can increase the genetic pool and evolutionary health of the species by a program of cross pollination, propagation, and distribution.” – Dr. Norman C. Deno

What about nativars resulting from mutagenic alterations? Adding damaged genetics isn’t helpful to an ecosystem.

Mutagenic alterations are when a commercial facility alters the seed in some way through the introduction of chemicals or a pathogen in order to induce abnormalities that some may find to be visually appealing. This can be an unusual growth pattern or fasciated flowers (such as double blooms). Double bloomed flowers are unlikely to reproduce, therefore their presence should be a non-issue. It wouldn’t provide much pollinator value, but it wouldn’t exactly cause any harm, either.

It is fairly easy to avoid these plants because they likely have a utility patent. This is not the same as the patents on most cultivars or nativars. It will read “US Utility PP” followed by the patent number. Still, it is good to read the patent information of any nativar you wish to purchase.

Nativars are not adapted to local conditions

That depends on where the nativar was developed, grown and propagated. It could be adapted just fine. If there are any gardens nearby growing it, ask them their experiences to see how well they perform in your climate. In southeastern PA and surrounding areas, there are over 30 formal gardens, many of which will plant some of the more popular nativars. They can tell you if they are doing well. Or look up Mt. Cuba’s research (which I linked earlier).

It’s true, nativars tend to be developed to perform well in the garden. The good news is that most people are working with gardens. Wild species don’t always do well in gardens. The soil in most people’s yards is nothing like that in which they evolved to thrive. While many species seem to be fairly adaptable, many will struggle trying to adjust. Building up that type of soil takes a lot of effort and a long time, time which we don’t really have. Over the years, as you continue to chop & drop or leave the leaves, as well as planting soil-builder plants, you may find it easier to introduce wild-adapted species to the mix.

Nativars are cloned, which does not contribute to genetic diversity

Many plants are cloned in the nursery trade. Some plants grow naturally in clonal communities, and this makes propagating them easier. This isn’t specific to nativars. If you want to increase genetic diversity on your property, opt for seed-grown plants.

I do have one counter-argument where this does not work. It is true, on their own, only planting a nativar on your property does not help with genetic diversity. If you have limited space to plant, sometimes planting nativars is the only way to ensure fruit production. Some species are dioecious – the male and female flowers occur on separate plants. Purchasing cultivars that are matched to flower at the same time helps to improve your chances of getting fruit. Since those will go on to re-seed and ideally to spread, any other related species that happen to flower at the same time can pollinate them as well.

“But Doug Tallamy says…”

There are two points made by Tallamy that are used in arguments against all nativars: one is that double flowered plants do not feed pollinators (not sure we needed a study for that), and that plants with dark foliage discourage herbivory.

Neither of those are specific to nativars only. A triple-flowered (aka fasciated) spring beauty occurred wild on my property. There are dark-colored varieties that occur in the wild, often sporting var. atropupurea at the end of the botanical name. If one really must plant a double flowered plant, it could still function ecologically as a host for caterpillars. It just wouldn’t be attractive to nectar/pollen seeking adults. The inverse of that, a dark-leaved plant can still function as a pollen/nectar source, it just wouldn’t host any caterpillars.

It doesn’t make what he said is wrong, but it doesn’t mean those plants are ecologically useless.

Tallamy also said to aim for 70% of your garden to be native. That’s still 3 out of every 10 plants that you can plant something a bit different if you are trying to follow his guidelines. Considering he has collaborated with Mt. Cuba Center, which researches how well cultivars perform in the garden, it doesn’t seem like he’s opposed to them. I’m not sure why his followers try to claim that he is.