Is it the percentage of Alaska’s flora also in that county, or is it percentage of that county’s flora that also happens to be in Alaska? Two different things. The South’s going to be lower in any case, but it’ll be far more exaggerated with the latter since there’s so many species there.
MagicWalrusO_o on
Really shows connection between Alaska and WA, which is something I’ve found most non-PNWers know very little about.
Clorst_Glornk on
check out Michigan’s internal borders, you could play a game of chess on those bad boys
Norwester77 on
I’m colorblind, so bear with me.
Is there any county (equivalent) above 75%? What’s the point of the 75-90, 90-95, and 95-100 categories?
moonfishthegreat on
I’m interested in the 5-10% pockets in the Southeast; what do those environments have that the rest of the region doesn’t have to support that flora?
tarkin1980 on
Even when its not another South is Bad ™ map, it still looks exactly the same. I found this amusing.
7 Comments
[removed]
Is it the percentage of Alaska’s flora also in that county, or is it percentage of that county’s flora that also happens to be in Alaska? Two different things. The South’s going to be lower in any case, but it’ll be far more exaggerated with the latter since there’s so many species there.
Really shows connection between Alaska and WA, which is something I’ve found most non-PNWers know very little about.
check out Michigan’s internal borders, you could play a game of chess on those bad boys
I’m colorblind, so bear with me.
Is there any county (equivalent) above 75%? What’s the point of the 75-90, 90-95, and 95-100 categories?
I’m interested in the 5-10% pockets in the Southeast; what do those environments have that the rest of the region doesn’t have to support that flora?
Even when its not another South is Bad ™ map, it still looks exactly the same. I found this amusing.