While talking about the evolution and conservation of dingoes in Australia, someone asked an interesting question:
Can I define the dingo as an endemic species?
That question, despite apparently simple, deals with some terminological conflicts and I must confess that I was not able to say yes or no at the moment.
As everybody knows, the dingoes (Canis lupus, but for some people Canis dingo1) were introduced in Australia by human beings, between 4,000 and 12,000 YBP. That being said, it's acceptable to define the dingo as an invasive, exotic species. Using Campbell's2 definition:
Invasive species: a species, often introduced by humans, that takes hold outside its native range.
However, some researchers argue that the dingoes, being isolated in Australia for a relatively long time, have a unique genetic profile. As this is controversial, let's suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that they do have a unique, distinctive genetic profile (and that they became a distinct species).
That being the case, the dingoes may be defined as endemic. Quoting Campbell again:
Endemic: referring to a species that is confined to a specific, relatively small geographic area.
I have taught biology for many years and I must confess that, for me, endemic and exotic were always opposite, mutually exclusive terms. However, in this case (and many others), it makes sense to say that the dingoes are exotic and endemic.
Maybe one can say that, from the moment the population became a distinct species on, it stopped to be exotic and started to be endemic, which would keep the two terms mutually exclusive.
So, my question is: can a given species (or population) be defined as exotic and endemic simultaneously?
PS: I'm not asking for opinions, which would make this question off topic for SE Biology. I'm asking for rules and guidelines in the use of the terms, preferably with references.