This naturalist attitude spoke of here is a weird concept. Those who base their bonsai on ancient Chinese or Japanese traditions should know that in the past bonsai were styled to look like animals, dragons, or such. Think of the old styles, look at the Larz Anderson collection, the naturalist mindset certainly did not come from the past.
Even the Literati style did not come in existence by duplicating trees in nature, but indeed by trying to imitate the trees in the Literati paintings.
Imagine telling a painter that all his trees had to look like trees, trees in nature, and that they must also duplicate the way they grow in nature, being true to natural forms.
Bonsai is art, sure you can imitate a tree, even be exactly true to form, but no one should be bound by the shapes in nature, nor the species natural form.
All that matters is the end result.
Does it matter if it is abstract?
Piet Mondrian
Hotlinked
Or impressionistic?
Vincent van Gogh
Hotlinked
Or any other style?
What species are the trees in the paintings? Does it matter? Does not knowing the species subtract from the end visual image as presented?
If knowing the species is not important, then neither is the form, because without knowledge of the species, there is no preconceived form.
So, I would not call the people who insist that bonsai forms be true to the species used naturalist, instead maybe I'd call them species to form purists. I'd also say they were limiting themselves needlessly.
Will
