Mmmmm, I’d say specialists would not use the broader definitions that are more colloquial in nature. Language depends on the user and their purpose/intent. Generally, trees are woody plants with secondary growth and they aren’t monocots. It’s not a hard boundary, but really depends on context.
It’s literally a blog post of one person’s opinion which concludes without a definitive statement, that it’s not settled if they’re trees or not, and then links to a page “for further reading” that categorizes them under trees.
I did and I agree with the author. You do not have to agree with us. It’s a form vs function argument. There is not a “right absolute” answer, it’s about how you approach the question.
then we agree that it’s incorrect to definitively say that a “palm tree” is not a tree.
rigidly defending the boundaries of a biological category that’s not a monophylitic group is an exercise in futility. or maybe in linguistics, because if it’s not monophyletic it’s not “real” in an evolutionary sense and the question is in the cultural realm and somewhat subjective. It’s like the discussions about whether a certain food is a fruit/vegetable/etc.
Oak trees are more closely related to palm trees than they are to pine trees. It would be pretty arbitrary to exclude monocots but still include magnolids and gymnosperms.
Even from a purely structural perspective, they’re all tall and have wood and leaves. Palm trees and banana trees don’t have woody branches, but joshua trees do. I guess there’s a difference that no monocot tree has heartwood, but you’ll still need a chainsaw to saw through the trunk of a palm tree.
Mmmmm, I’d say specialists would not use the broader definitions that are more colloquial in nature. Language depends on the user and their purpose/intent. Generally, trees are woody plants with secondary growth and they aren’t monocots. It’s not a hard boundary, but really depends on context.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=coconut+tree
Someone should tell the authors of these hundreds of papers then.
You do realize the qualifiers you edited in are exactly my point and directly contradict your post, right?
https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/duvalco/2024/01/23/are-palm-trees-really-trees/
There’s no way you actually read that.
It’s literally a blog post of one person’s opinion which concludes without a definitive statement, that it’s not settled if they’re trees or not, and then links to a page “for further reading” that categorizes them under trees.
I did and I agree with the author. You do not have to agree with us. It’s a form vs function argument. There is not a “right absolute” answer, it’s about how you approach the question.
then we agree that it’s incorrect to definitively say that a “palm tree” is not a tree.
rigidly defending the boundaries of a biological category that’s not a monophylitic group is an exercise in futility. or maybe in linguistics, because if it’s not monophyletic it’s not “real” in an evolutionary sense and the question is in the cultural realm and somewhat subjective. It’s like the discussions about whether a certain food is a fruit/vegetable/etc.
I see it as a paradox. :) I don’t like calling them trees. I just call them palms.
Oak trees are more closely related to palm trees than they are to pine trees. It would be pretty arbitrary to exclude monocots but still include magnolids and gymnosperms.
Even from a purely structural perspective, they’re all tall and have wood and leaves. Palm trees and banana trees don’t have woody branches, but joshua trees do. I guess there’s a difference that no monocot tree has heartwood, but you’ll still need a chainsaw to saw through the trunk of a palm tree.