Actually Carica papaya, most woody stemmed palms, cycads are indeed trees in
the classical sense. So are Welwitschia and tortured bonsai despite their
much compacted form. The single woody trunk is key to the definition of a
tree not height. Height is quantitative (relative to the size of the
observer) not qualitative.

Bananas are just giant herbs because they never form a woody trunk.


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Phred schreef

Dunno about that, Iris. If a standard lump on the ground is a
molehill, what makes it a mountain? Anyway, I'm *nearly* sure I've
seen taxonomic tomes where the habit of some species is said to be
"shrub or small tree". While that may indicate nothing more than
confusion in the mind of the taxonomist, is "tree" really definitive
in a descriptive sense for taxonomic purposes?

What about pawpaw (_Carica papaya_) "trees" which are really very
large herbs? (I had one in the backyard years ago that was 64 feet
tall -- as measured horizontally after it blew over in a storm .

* * *
Actually Carica papaya is a tree by any definition you care to select,
which
cannot be said for banana 'trees', palms and bonsai. I cannot really
imagine
Welwitschia being a tree.

Habit of a species can indeed be "shrub or small tree", or "liana or
tree",
etc.
PvR