I think \"wild\" and \"native\" should be differentiated here... I can cultivate native plants and seed and them not be wild, or on the flip side, cultivated plants and seed can be left to their own devices and become wild. Genetic lineage has no precedence on the way a living thing is termed in the way it has lived its life.
Take a common house cat for example, if you were to turn it loose in the woods and it not interact with man for say, five years. What would happen? It would become wild as any other animal. Is it native? No.
Another example, Wild Mustangs. They are exemplary and iconic of a wild animal in the U.S. Are they native? No, they're from Spain.
I do believe in conserving the native genetics of an area. I wished I could have started out with completely native seedstock but I couldn't. All native plants in the area I grow I transplate to a different farm miles away. Id like to think that one day I will only plant native seed. That will be years down the road and in a different area after the land is used up where I'm planting now.
I have many native plants which were formerly wild that have been under cultivation ever since I found them, I don't consider those wild. I have seed from a different area which were formerly cultivated but have been left alone for many years and have (in my eyes) become wild. I have seed that have been planted from another area which were formerly cultivated and have been managed for disease so I guess they're woods grown or wild simulated. I also found some seed I tried to plant and a mouse moved them all to one spot, he forgot where he put them apparently and they come up..... Somebody, please tell me what I'm supposed to call those because surely there is a term. I do believe this subject has been a bit over thought.
Not to step on any toes here but, some folk might not have such a strong stance on this issue and chastise others over it if Canada had a legal digging season and didn't force them to classify those root as cultivated.
Hillhopper