In article ,
(Iris Cohen) wrote:
most definitions of trees include some means of
distinguishing them from shrubs, generally height.

The one I am familiar with is that a shrub is a woody plant which is usually
under ten feet tall & has multiple stems. A tree is usually over ten feet tall
& usually has a single stem.
What about dwarf trees which are way under ten feet tall & might have multiple
trunks, like a dwarf birch? I would assume if the standard plant is a tree, the
dwarf form is also called a tree. Tsuga canadensis 'Minuta' is still a tree,
albeit 3" tall.

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 .



Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

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

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

If a standard lump on the ground is a
molehill, what makes it a mountain?

Cereoid and Pieter.

What about pawpaw (_Carica papaya_) "trees" which are really very large
herbs?

Pawpaw is Asimina triloba, a member of the Annonaceae, definitely a tree.
Carica papaya, the papaya, is referred to as a plant, not a tree, same as a
banana plant.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

Actually Carica papaya is a tree by any definition you care to select, which
cannot be said for banana 'trees',

Why? As far as I could tell from the pictures, they are both herbaceous. The
references on the Internet call them plants, not trees.

palms and bonsai.

What is the trunk of a palm made of? If it is lignified in some way, then I
would call it a tree. Does the absence of branches make it not a tree?

Why is a bonsai not a tree? It may be only a few inches or a couple of feet
tall, but
1. In most cases, if it were put in the ground and allowed to grow freely, it
would become a normal size tree.
2. Its purpose is to represent a full size tree. So why isn't a bonsai a tree?

Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

Seems like you are suffering from "Seanitis", Iris. You need to stop playing
with your 'puter once in a while and get out into the real world and look at
the actual plants first hand.

All trees are plants.

Carica papaya does have a woody trunk and is a tree. Maybe not as woody as
some other arborescent plants but that is just a matter of degree.

A woody trunk makes arborescent palms trees. The presence or absences of
branches doesn't matter.

Who said bonasi weren't trees? It wasn't me.


"Iris Cohen" wrote in message
...
Actually Carica papaya is a tree by any definition you care to select,
which
cannot be said for banana 'trees',

Why? As far as I could tell from the pictures, they are both herbaceous.
The
references on the Internet call them plants, not trees.

palms and bonsai.

What is the trunk of a palm made of? If it is lignified in some way, then
I
would call it a tree. Does the absence of branches make it not a tree?

Why is a bonsai not a tree? It may be only a few inches or a couple of
feet
tall, but
1. In most cases, if it were put in the ground and allowed to grow freely,
it
would become a normal size tree.
2. Its purpose is to represent a full size tree. So why isn't a bonsai a
tree?

Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

In article ,
Iris Cohen wrote:

What about pawpaw (_Carica papaya_) "trees" which are really very large
herbs?

Pawpaw is Asimina triloba, a member of the Annonaceae, definitely a tree.
Carica papaya, the papaya, is referred to as a plant, not a tree, same as a
banana plant.

In the US, Carica papaya is called papaya, and Asimina triloba is
called pawpaw, or papaw, which is a corruption of the Spanish word
papaya, meaning the fruit of C.papaya, derived from its name in a
Cariban language. In Australia and some other parts of the English
speaking world, C.papaya is called pawpaw, and A.triloba is unknown.

In a more general sense, the same applies to the English word "tree",
which is not really a botanical term. Comparable words in other
languages, especially non-Indo-European languages, won't refer to quite
the same set of plants.

The real world is a messy place with fuzzy edges. Plants just grow and
evolve, and are not concerned with what they are called in English. We
try to shove them in labelled boxes but there's always a few toes of
socks and other odds and ends sticking out because we're imposing an
artificial distinction on reality.

So-called trees have evolved in many unrelated taxa. It's a term of
convenience for us. The genus Ficus, for example, has trees, shrubs,
vines and creepers in it. Lots of temperate climate plants grow as
shrubs or trees. A coppiced tree may grow back as technically a bush,
multitrunked, even if it gets 20 meters tall. The wood of a pine, though
a gymnosperm, looks a lot more like the wood of an oak (angiosperm) than
oak wood looks like the spongy fibrous stuff that makes up the trunk of
the angiosperm palm tree. Bamboo is better wood than palm trunks, and can
grow as tall, but it's a mere grass, even if it is much more useful as
timber.

Arguing whether Weltwitschia is a tree is fun, but it's playing with
words, not botanical reality.

You need to stop playing with your 'puter once in a while and get out into
the real world and look at
the actual plants first hand.

True enough. I haven't seen a real papaya in 20 years. I was trying to tell
from the pictures.

A woody trunk makes arborescent palms trees.

That's what I thought.

Who said bonsai weren't trees?

Pieter, but I set him straight. There are a great many misconceptions about
bonsai. They aren't tortured either. In order to be successful, a bonsai has to
be very healthy.

Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

Thanks for rehashing your creationist version of intro to botany class for
us, Bae, but we have already heard it before.

Although we know you are just having fun, Welwitschia is indeed a tree in
the botanical sense of the word. Have you ever seen one in your reality?
They don't grow wild in Toronto.

If your socks have holes in them, it would be a good idea you make the
effort to go and buy a new pair to cover your really smelly feet.


wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Iris Cohen wrote:

What about pawpaw (_Carica papaya_) "trees" which are really very
large
herbs?

Pawpaw is Asimina triloba, a member of the Annonaceae, definitely a tree.
Carica papaya, the papaya, is referred to as a plant, not a tree, same as
a
banana plant.

In the US, Carica papaya is called papaya, and Asimina triloba is
called pawpaw, or papaw, which is a corruption of the Spanish word
papaya, meaning the fruit of C.papaya, derived from its name in a
Cariban language. In Australia and some other parts of the English
speaking world, C.papaya is called pawpaw, and A.triloba is unknown.

In a more general sense, the same applies to the English word "tree",
which is not really a botanical term. Comparable words in other
languages, especially non-Indo-European languages, won't refer to quite
the same set of plants.

The real world is a messy place with fuzzy edges. Plants just grow and
evolve, and are not concerned with what they are called in English. We
try to shove them in labelled boxes but there's always a few toes of
socks and other odds and ends sticking out because we're imposing an
artificial distinction on reality.

So-called trees have evolved in many unrelated taxa. It's a term of
convenience for us. The genus Ficus, for example, has trees, shrubs,
vines and creepers in it. Lots of temperate climate plants grow as
shrubs or trees. A coppiced tree may grow back as technically a bush,
multitrunked, even if it gets 20 meters tall. The wood of a pine, though
a gymnosperm, looks a lot more like the wood of an oak (angiosperm) than
oak wood looks like the spongy fibrous stuff that makes up the trunk of
the angiosperm palm tree. Bamboo is better wood than palm trunks, and can
grow as tall, but it's a mere grass, even if it is much more useful as
timber.

Arguing whether Weltwitschia is a tree is fun, but it's playing with
words, not botanical reality.

Who said bonsai weren't trees?

Iris Cohen schreef
Pieter, but I set him straight. There are a great many misconceptions
about bonsai. They aren't tortured either. In order to be successful, a
bonsai has to be very healthy.

******
By most definitions bonsai are not trees.
It is irrelevant whether they will grow out to become trees (when released
from their torturer / benefactor). A seedling may grow out to be a tree but
is not itself a tree.

There is a word to describe bonsai, i.e. "bonsai" (sometimes missspelled
"banzai"). This is not a taxonomic term.
PvR

Cereus-validus schreef
Welwitschia is indeed a tree in the botanical sense of the word.

********
Not in any botany book I ever saw.
You confusing your 'Gardener's World' (or whatever it is called) for the
ultimate authority on botany again?
PvR

In article ,
"Cereus-validus" wrote:
Seems like you are suffering from "Seanitis", Iris. You need to stop playing
with your 'puter once in a while and get out into the real world and look at
the actual plants first hand.

All trees are plants.

Carica papaya does have a woody trunk and is a tree. Maybe not as woody as
some other arborescent plants but that is just a matter of degree.

Bloke I know who spent some years breeding the things always claimed
they had no lignified tissue, therefore not "woody". (And after
cutting down many pawpaw trees with a blunt cane knife over the years,
I can confirm they are not in the least woody -- at least as far as
people here in Oz understand the term. YMMV.)

A woody trunk makes arborescent palms trees. The presence or absences of
branches doesn't matter.

Who said bonasi weren't trees? It wasn't me.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Phred schreef
Bloke I know who spent some years breeding the things always claimed
they had no lignified tissue, therefore not "woody". (And after
cutting down many pawpaw trees with a blunt cane knife over the years,
I can confirm they are not in the least woody -- at least as far as
people here in Oz understand the term. YMMV.)

*****
Technically Carica has secondary xylem that lacks fibers in its make-up.
Composed mostly of parenchyma, which has no secondary walls (primary wall
only). Only the vessels are lignified.
PvR

And after cutting down many pawpaw trees with a blunt cane knife over the
years,

Be careful with common names. In this country pawpaw is Asimina triloba. Better
stick to calling it papaya.
Look at the confusion the name cedar causes.

I finally saw a picture of your new Wollemi "pine."
Almost as ugly as its cousin, the Norfolk Island pine,
which of course does not detract from its botanical value.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

Welwitschia is indeed a tree in the botanical sense of the word. Have you
ever seen one in your reality?
They don't grow wild in Toronto.

However, the last time I was in the Royal Botanical Garden in Hamilton, which
is on the way to Toronto, they had one. They even had an olive tree.
As I mentioned before, the reason Welwitschia doesn't look like a tree is that
much of its trunk is underground. It is a member of the order Gnetales, which
may be changed to a subdivision. It is related to Gnetum & Ephedra. They are
peculiar plants somewhere between the angiosperms and gymnosperms, but closer
to the conifers.

Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)