“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.
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
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.
You forgot about the myth of vegetables.
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…
Halt! I’m here to check the expiry date of your facts!
There’s no widely-accepted scientific definition of a tree.
##PeopleCorrectingPeopleIncorrectly
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.
“Trees” have secondary growth while “palms” have primary growth. At least that is what I have been told in dendrology lectures.
not necessarily no
From the coco palm family!
