In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| I may be mistaken in that opinion, of course, in which case there must,
| presumably, be radically different definitions of 'native' in vogue?

I have seen all of the following:

Established for most of a millennium (includes rabbits)
Established since history (i.e. before the Roman invasion)
No definite proof of human involvement
Not deliberately introduced (includes rats etc.)
Including reintroductions (e.g. capercaillie)
Oh, sod it, this doesn't make sense


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.