"Tree" isn't a biological definition. It's a descriptive term for "a tall plant with at least one rigid central trunk." Which means that anything that looks like a tree is probably a tree, regardless of species.
I am a tree
Ayy, welcome to the tree club!
shrieks TREE LAWWWWW
TREEEEEESSSS THEY ARE UUUUSSSSSS
We welcome you to tree-hood, my fellow arbor
Do you get pollinated by birds and bees?
That's personal
There's no widely-accepted scientific definition of a tree.
##PeopleCorrectingPeopleIncorrectly
There's no such thing as a tree.
And as a QI fan, I feel compelled to add there's no such thing as a fish
No such thing as a tree? So you mean all those binary trees I've been inverting have been a lie? My whole world is shattered.
Of plants native to the Canary Islands, wood independently evolved at least 38 times!
Indeed, it simply is not a phylogenetic categorization but a physio-ecological one. Tree, like shrub, liana, herbaceous, woody/non-woody are all terms solely used to place plants into functional groups based on how they grow. None of these has to do with their taxonomy.
So the question is, what is a tree and is having secondary growth necessary to be one? Because monocots, like palms are, don't have secondary growth, they use some workarounds. But why should that matter in the definition of a tree? I don't know. So yeah, a coconut palm should be considered a tree. But it hasn't got to do with phylogenetics (like explained in the article you linked).
Also, millennia ago there have been vast forests of lycopods!! Just imagine huge trees that are actually spikemosses. So why shouldn't a palm not be a tree?
my definition of a tree is basically "a plant consisting of a single pillar-like robust trunk".
most plants can be trees, especially ones that generally grow as bushes, if they are prodded into doing so by pruning and whatever other pressures, and there are some plants that seem to flip a coin to decide whether they grow into bushes or trees.
Except that yes there is. It's just not a scientific term. Same with fish.
You forgot about the myth of vegetables.
Halt! I'm here to check the expiry date of your facts!
A local park ranger I know likes to remark that our state tree is a grass. (I'm in Florida.)
But I'd say that's also inaccurate. IMO, grasses are in the family Poaceae, and palms are in the family Arecaceae. I guess one could remark that our state tree is a commelinid...but I don't think tourists would get as much of a kick out of that.
Typical trees belong to a group of plants called dicots
Whaaaat? Swiftly ignoring all gymnosperms? The temperate zones are full of trees that aren't dicots, or even angiosperms! Focusing on some biological traits that aren't crucial to the definition of a tree sounds like the author already likes their neat categories and wants to retroactively justify them...
Neat read, thanks
it looks like a tree and quacks like a tree though.
Ironically, in this case, that literally means it's a tree
Trees are the plant version of crabs.
Okay, and raspberries aren't technically berries at all, but aggregate fruits. In other words, so the fuck what? When you say 'coconut tree', everyone knows what plant you're referring to.
It's probably going to be political since it's wrong.
The coconut tree (Cocos nucifera) is a member of the palm tree family (Arecaceae) and the only living species of the genus Cocos. The term "coconut" (or the archaic "cocoanut") can refer to the whole coconut palm, the seed, or the fruit, which botanically is a drupe, not a nut. They are ubiquitous in coastal tropical regions and are a cultural icon of the tropics.
From the coco palm family!
🎵 Ya ya ya ya ya 🎵
Time to post one of my favorite songs:
("Da Coconut Nut", by Ryan Cayabyab. This version is probably the one performed by his group, Smokey Mountain.)
This song reminds us that the coconut is not a nut; it is the fruit of the cocopalm.
Wait, what?
Palms, like corn, are really tall grass.
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2011/11/06/yes-technically-palms-are-a-big-grass/
Conifers aren't trees by this definition. It seems to completely ignore gymnosperms and even misclassified a couple as dicots like sequoias and junipers.
We need to stop looking for a scientifically coherent category for a tree and ,like fish, embrace the true, intuitive, childlike definition of it as just a form, a trunk with leaves at the top.
How many social credit points do I lose if I refer to bamboo products as "wood" outside of botany nerd circles?
If I remember correctly, wood consists mainly of cellulose, lignin, and hemi-cellulose. I don't know about bamboo, but I guess it's some kind of woody material.
It’s the lack of lignin (bamboo uses silica as a strengthener) that sets it apart.
But bamboo is a grass, anyways.
Never doubted bamboo not being a grass. But I didn't know about the silica thing - that's really cool!! Thank you for telling this!
It’s the lack of lignin (bamboo uses silica as a strengthener)
Oh I see
I'd say about 69.
Nice.
"Trees" have secondary growth while "palms" have primary growth. At least that is what I have been told in dendrology lectures.
not necessarily no
true enough, that doesn't exclude them from being trees though.
I have literature right here that says otherwise.
Ahem..
"A told B, and B told C, I'll beat you to the top of the coconut tree."
You can tell it's an Aspen from the way it is
Thats pretty neat!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
