Yes, I don't like the spider in the bathtub any more than the next stereotypical housewife, and I don't fancy something poisonous reaching my house with my next bunch of bananas. Many times the effect of an invasive species is not known properly, and the cause of any problems is in fact something different – more of which in a second. Many species have been introduced and all the reportage suggests them to be evil, malevolent, invasive, unwanted, unwelcome, damaging, etc (unless they're just too damned cute) yet oftentimes the truth is something much different. There's also misdirection elsewhere – I am sure I read the dangers of the Harlequin ladybird in its march from America – although it's not American, and might have a purpose in the end. Who was on the throne of the UK when the collared dove was first in the wild? Our current queen was, that's who. Many people in a silly survey a few years ago voted for 'official' 'county flowers' and picked a host of foreign imports. Rabbits came over to Britain with the Romans northern America had horses until they became extinct 8,000 years ago – then lo and behold the Spanish put them back. One problem is that the definition of an invasive species is more than woolly. And the end results might be much more damaging. In much the same way the Daily Mail et al have their own attitudes to immigrants of the human kind, so it would appear do many people have similar notions about immigrant species. So says our author, and you can easily fall into agreeing with him after reading his book. Much of what passes for invasion biology is poorly supported hype.

Interesting and clear, but I wished the book had more of a compelling touch to generate more purpose. Summary: The case of the unwanted spider in the bathtub, magnified to a global scale.

Ken thompson where do camels belong