As Iris has already pointed out, the definition of what constitutes a tree
has absolutely nothing to do with height, number of leaves or number of
branches at all.

Most trees obviously do have branches arising from the trunk but not the
base.

Mulberries are actually trees not shrubs because they have a single main
woody trunk. They do not branch primarily from the base as do shrubs.

I suppose if you actually bothered to look up the definitions of the terms
in a botanical dictionary it would boggle your mind and incorrect
preconceived notions.

There are actually many more tree species found around the world than you
will see sitting behind your 'puter looking out your window. Try going out
into the real world. You might actually learn something on your own.


"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1095655795.vHDg1ppMHVISnXQw36/VQw@teranews...
"Cereus-validus" wrote in
. com:



Welwitschia isn't a tree, but...

An important factor in counting the number of leaves on a tree is
time of year. Since Daniel is posting in fairly decent English,
he is likely in a north temperate area. If he would wait till
some time in December, the easy answer to his question would
often be 'none'. However, a quick scan and guess of the 25 year
old mulberry tree outside my window looks like perhaps about 50
thousand leaves. I would expect that a large Giant redwood would
have several million leaves.


Actually, by definition, Welwitschia is a tree because it has a
single unbranched woody trunk!!!! That it has only two leaves is
besides the point.


Odd definition, most definitions of trees include some means of
distinguishing them from shrubs, generally height. Do you mean to
imply that if a woody plant has branches on the trunk, or more than
one trunk, that it must not be a tree? If so, there aren't very many
species that manage to be trees.

Sean