Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

Does anyone know how long the terms "caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

Actually, shrubs are just as caulescent as trees. They have stems and
branches (they do lack a single trunk.) "Acaulescent" refers to a plant
with no stem at all--that is, all the leaves appear to arise from the
ground. Liriope (lily turf) is a good example. So is dandelion--no
stem at all (the flower stalk doesn't count)

Monique Reed

Hosley wrote:
Does anyone know how long the terms "caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

In message . com,
Hosley writes
Does anyone know how long the terms "caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

The earliest example I found was (for caulescent) in Martyn's "The
Language of Botany", published in 1796. Given the context one presumes
that the term has a longer pedigree.

BTW, the terms apply to herbaceous plants as well as to woody plants.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

On Jul 23, 4:51 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com,
Hosley writesDoes anyone know how long the terms "caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

The earliest example I found was (for caulescent) in Martyn's "The
Language of Botany", published in 1796. Given the context one presumes
that the term has a longer pedigree.

BTW, the terms apply to herbaceous plants as well as to woody plants.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks for finding this source, which I'm currently trying to find. I
suppose I can just cite botany papers that use the term, which should
be easy to find.

Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

On Jul 23, 4:44 pm, monique wrote:
Actually, shrubs are just as caulescent as trees. They have stems and
branches (they do lack a single trunk.) "Acaulescent" refers to a plant
with no stem at all--that is, all the leaves appear to arise from the
ground. Liriope (lily turf) is a good example. So is dandelion--no
stem at all (the flower stalk doesn't count)

Monique Reed

Hosley wrote:
Does anyone know how long the terms "caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

Sorry, I guess shrubs was a bad example. Fortunately, caulescent
remains a perfect term for what I'm trying to describe, which is a
similar property in brain cell morphology.

Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

In message . com,
Hosley writes
On Jul 23, 4:51 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com,
Hosley writesDoes anyone know how long the terms
"caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

The earliest example I found was (for caulescent) in Martyn's "The
Language of Botany", published in 1796. Given the context one presumes
that the term has a longer pedigree.

BTW, the terms apply to herbaceous plants as well as to woody plants.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks for finding this source, which I'm currently trying to find. I
suppose I can just cite botany papers that use the term, which should
be easy to find.

It's in Google Books
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:30:32 -0700, Hosley
wrote:

On Jul 23, 4:51 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com,
Hosley writesDoes anyone know how long the terms "caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

The earliest example I found was (for caulescent) in Martyn's "The
Language of Botany", published in 1796. Given the context one presumes
that the term has a longer pedigree.

BTW, the terms apply to herbaceous plants as well as to woody plants.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks for finding this source, which I'm currently trying to find. I
suppose I can just cite botany papers that use the term, which should
be easy to find.

Why not consult a good unabridged dictionary?

My Random House Unabridged Dictionary shows:

cau•les•cent adj. Bot.having an obvious stem rising
above the ground. [1785–95; L caul ( is) a stalk, stem +
-ESCENT]

If you have a library nearby see if they have the large
edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (this will be like
a set of encyclopedias; ie multiple volumes). It should have
dates and possibly some citations demonstrating early/proper
usage.

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

Origin of "caluescent" anf "acaulescent" terms
 

On Jul 25, 2:59 pm, Leon Fisk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:30:32 -0700, Hosley



wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:51 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message . com,
Hosley writesDoes anyone know how long the terms "caulescent" and "acaulescent"
have been in use, and if their is a reference I can point to where
they were first used? They refer to whether or not a plant has a
visible stem. For example, trees are considered caulescent because of
their prominent trunks, whereas some (but not all ) shrubs are
acaulescent, with their stems being underground.

Thanks,
Hos

The earliest example I found was (for caulescent) in Martyn's "The
Language of Botany", published in 1796. Given the context one presumes
that the term has a longer pedigree.

BTW, the terms apply to herbaceous plants as well as to woody plants.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks for finding this source, which I'm currently trying to find. I
suppose I can just cite botany papers that use the term, which should
be easy to find.

Why not consult a good unabridged dictionary?

My Random House Unabridged Dictionary shows:

cau·les·cent adj. Bot.having an obvious stem rising
above the ground. [1785-95; L caul ( is) a stalk, stem +
-ESCENT]

If you have a library nearby see if they have the large
edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (this will be like
a set of encyclopedias; ie multiple volumes). It should have
dates and possibly some citations demonstrating early/proper
usage.

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

Looks like related terms goes back as far as Linnaeus in the 1750's
and beyond. Thanks for the advice.