Zidona dufresnei (Donovan, 1823) is a big-sized and long-lived snail endemic to the south-western Atlantic where it dwells in sandy bottoms between five and 115 m; females lay big egg capsules from which crawling juveniles emerge. An unusual population of Z. dufresnei inhabits the low intertidal and shallow subtidal zone of San Antonio Bay, the southernmost location of the species, where it faces many threats. The aim of this study is to describe some of the demographic and reproductive characteristics of this population and to compare them to those located in northern zones. Monthly samples of adults and egg capsules were obtained from October to April and their position was recorded; snails and capsules were gathered for examination in the laboratory. Sex-ratio was near 1:1 for the whole sampling period and the size–frequency distributions were similar for both sexes; females were wider and heavier than males at the same shell length. Maximum shell length was 120.5 mm in our study and so no female reached the minimum size at first gonadal maturity reported for other populations (128 mm); female size seems to limit the capsule diameter and the number and size of embryos that are lower than in other populations. Egg capsule and adult densities in the intertidal zone peaked in February and March respectively, averaging 1.34 capsules and 1.91 snails by 100 m2 during the sampling period; egg capsule deposition elapsed from November to March and peaked in December; females select cobble by size to lay egg capsules. Due to its restricted distribution and the low juvenile and adult dispersal, the unusual Z. dufresnei population dwelling in San Antonio Bay seems to be quite vulnerable to diverse anthropogenic impacts.

Invasion science has not been developed without controversies. Two questions that are still unsolved are: what is an invasive species?, and are invasive species an inherent conservation problem? These questions have led to discussions about effects versus origins. In contrast to the definitional problems, a unified framework describing invasion as a step-by-step process has been widely accepted. I conducted a bibliographic search with two separate databases searching for (i) evidence of less use of controversial terms over time; (ii) how many articles defined 'invasive species'; (iii) the criteria used to define a species as invasive; and (iv) in which stage of the invasion continuum were species labelled as invasive located. My results show that controversial terms are widely used, that authors rarely define 'invasive species' and, often, it is very complicated to determine which criterion they used. In addition, only a fraction of the species labelled as invasive could be classified as such according to the unified framework of invasion stages. This is not a merely semantic issue, because invasive is a strong and value-laden term that is used to guide environmental agendas. The uncritical use of a key concept could hamper research, complicate communication among peers and produce mixed results.

A species is not native outside its native range, but native range is not precisely defined. The invasion literature contains wide discussion of the core concepts such as naturalization, invasiveness, and ecological impact, but the concept of native range has received so little attention that a formal definition does not exist. I considered, among other impediments to a formal definition of native range, the sometimes arbitrariness of the spatial and temporal limits assigned to native range. Broad questions that remain include whether invasion theory can be used to define the native range for species without non‐native ranges.