The woody trunk of a Welwitschia is held above the ground level, oh
uninformed one.

Like I said before Sean, you should stop looking up things on your 'puter
and go out and look at the actual plants in the real world. Or is that too
much like real work for you?

There are several feral mulberries (Morus alba) growing along the fence in
the field behind my house, numbnuts. There is also one that I have been
trying to eradicate from my yard that insists on sprouting from the roots.
So I can confidently say that I have more than enough first-hand knowledge
of the weed tree. I have also investigated a few back yards that have been
infested with Morus rubra. Lovely leaves but still a nasty weed.

There are several trees that will sucker from the base, especially when
damaged. One of the most notorious offenders are Silver Maple and Quaking
Aspen. That does not mean they are not true trees. That only means they have
developed weedy tendencies in response to damage from frequent predation.

That's funny. When I look up "Netkook", I find a picture of your mother
giving birth to you, Sean!!!


"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1095880451.22ApWtUobLBcpWdCj0DoNg@teranews...
"Cereus-validus" wrote in
. com:




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.


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.

Exacly what part of Iris' description includes any definition, or even
a mention of height? I admit that she did post a definition that
mentioned height, but that was posted after your post was.

I take it you have never seen a wild mulberry. They are a great example
of branching primarily at the base. The ones that you purchase from a
nursery have been pruned to a single stem, allowing them to be trees.

I have not only looked up the term in a dictionary, but I have also
looked up a few other things... Fer instance, "tuberous root"
"taproot" and even "Netkook" (how cute, there is a picture of you
there). Here is the definition offered by The Complete Trees of North
America, by Thomas Elias: Trees are woody plants that usually grow to
at least 5 m (16 ft) tall and have a single trunk. A shrub, by
contrast, is typically a multiple-stemmed woody plant with more than
one dominant stem, and shrubs are normally less than 5 m (16 ft) tall.
Most woody plants can be identified easily as either a tree or a shrub.


If it is underground, it isn't a trunk, just like if it is underground,
it isn't a stolon. Just being woody and over 10 feet long doesn't make
something a trunk, otherwise Cucurbita foetidissima would be classified
as a tree, as its tuberous root can be much over 10 feet long, and
quite woody, with rings and everything. Mesquite, (Prosopis glandulosa)
generally is less than 10 feet tall above ground, but the taproots can
extend many feet underground (100 feet has been measured), all of those
basal branches must be fooling us, and the shrub is really a tree! Look
up Phreatophyte some time.


Sean