You mean by most definitions in the book of Rinkytink in Rinkytink land
where you are the supreme authority and total despot, don't you?


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
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

You should go to the library more often. You might actually learn something
new! You can't get all your info from reading old copies of "Organic
Gardening", babe!!

You must never have actually read anything on Welwitschia itself and all
your info is second-hand innuendo.


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
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

Is it true that in Oz you look at Baobobs standing on your head so that they
can seem to grow right-side up?

Sorry about your not being able to get a woody, bloker.


"Phred" wrote in message
...
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

Iris Cohen schreef
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.

* * *
Yes, olive trees are trees.

* * *

As I mentioned before, the reason Welwitschia doesn't look like a tree is
that much of its trunk is underground.

* * *
That might sound better if it actually had a trunk

* * *

It is a member of the order Gnetales, which may be changed to a
subdivision.

* * *
Gnetales by definition is an order (ending -ales).
The rank of a taxon with only three genera does not seem a very interesting
topic.

***
It is related to Gnetum & Ephedra. They are peculiar plants somewhere
between the angiosperms and gymnosperms, but closer to the conifers.

* * *

No. Welwitschia, Ephedra and Gnetum are Gymnosperms. Have been just about
forever. Conifers are another group of Gymnosperms.
PvR

Affinities of other living Gnetales to Welwitschia do not help understand
the genus at all because they too are highly specialized in their mode of
growth. Ephedra are coralliform shrubs while Gnetum are woody lianas.

Welwitschia has a single woody stem arising from a deep taproot. The
flowering crown is raised well above the ground level on a woody trunk. It
most definitely is a tree.


"Iris Cohen" wrote in message
...
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)

So that means Rinkytink must be a nut!!!!


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Iris Cohen schreef
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.

* * *
Yes, olive trees are trees.

* * *

As I mentioned before, the reason Welwitschia doesn't look like a tree
is
that much of its trunk is underground.

* * *
That might sound better if it actually had a trunk

* * *

It is a member of the order Gnetales, which may be changed to a
subdivision.

* * *
Gnetales by definition is an order (ending -ales).
The rank of a taxon with only three genera does not seem a very
interesting
topic.

***
It is related to Gnetum & Ephedra. They are peculiar plants somewhere
between the angiosperms and gymnosperms, but closer to the conifers.

* * *

No. Welwitschia, Ephedra and Gnetum are Gymnosperms. Have been just about
forever. Conifers are another group of Gymnosperms.
PvR

Cereus-validus schreef
Welwitschia has a single woody stem arising from a deep taproot. The
flowering crown is raised well above the ground level on a woody trunk. It
most definitely is a tree.

*****
To somebody who never gets beyond reading comic books, sure.
PvR

By most definitions bonsai are not trees.

Why not? They meet all the criteria except size, and as I said before, they
REPRESENT a full size tree. Are you going to suggest that a chihuahua is not a
dog?
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
writes
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.

Seems to be a matter of taste. I've only seen the one Norfolk Island
Pine in the wood (it's a glasshouse plant hereabouts), but I thought it
quite attractive.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

By most definitions bonsai are not trees.

Iris Cohen schreef
Why not? They meet all the criteria except size, and as I said before,
they REPRESENT a full size tree.

****
Size is part of most definitions, and bonsai are well short of the minimum
required by those definitions. One might say that a requirement for a bonsai
is that it must be too small to be a tree.
PvR

Seems you are once again in full troll mood, Rinkytink.

What's the matter? Did your pet rat die?

No matter what you say, up isn't down and black isn't white.


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
Cereus-validus schreef
Welwitschia has a single woody stem arising from a deep taproot. The
flowering crown is raised well above the ground level on a woody trunk. It
most definitely is a tree.

*****
To somebody who never gets beyond reading comic books, sure.
PvR

You may as well ignore the nonsense Rinkytink says. It is obvious that he is
going out of his way to be contrary and obnoxious no matter what the facts
are. Size is relative and quantitative not qualitative. That may a major
concern when the dude is hung like a chihuahua but it isn't relative to what
defines a tree.


"Iris Cohen" wrote in message
...
By most definitions bonsai are not trees.

Why not? They meet all the criteria except size, and as I said before,
they
REPRESENT a full size tree. Are you going to suggest that a chihuahua is
not a
dog?
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)

Absolute nonsense. Size is quantative not qualitative and not part of most
definitions.

If we go by size alone, it probably could be said that Rinkytink is too
small to be a man!!!


"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message
...
By most definitions bonsai are not trees.

Iris Cohen schreef
Why not? They meet all the criteria except size, and as I said before,
they REPRESENT a full size tree.

****
Size is part of most definitions, and bonsai are well short of the minimum
required by those definitions. One might say that a requirement for a
bonsai
is that it must be too small to be a tree.
PvR

"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