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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.