|
|
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 |
Not in any botany book I ever saw.
How about Trees of Southern Africa by Palgrave? And another book of the same name by Palmer & Pitman. The reason you don't often see it descibed in serious botanical books is that once the botanist starts writing about it, he can't stop laughing. 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) |
Iris Cohen schreef
How about Trees of Southern Africa by Palgrave? *** Touché! Point to you. Not that you would recognise a tree from reading their description of Welwitschia mirabilis. Maybe they just wanted an excuse to include this oddity. ***** And another book of the same name by Palmer & Pitman. The reason you don't often see it descibed in serious botanical books is that once the botanist starts writing about it, he can't stop laughing. *** Actually Welwitschia is in lots of botany books, but never* described as a tree. Reading a description of Welwitschia by a German botanist I don't sense any laughter (with the author), but only a yawn (rising within myself). PvR * Excepting the mentioned books |
Not that you would recognise a tree from reading their description of
Welwitschia mirabilis. OK. I have given several reasons why Welwitschia is a tree: 1. It is a conifer, in a group where almost all its relatives are trees. 2. It has a single definite woody trunk. 3. It has leaves coming out of the top. 4. It is a perennial. Incidentally, besides pictures, I have met them personally. Now tell me why Welwitschia is *not* a tree. Reading a description of Welwitschia by a German botanist I don't sense any laughter German botanists don't count. Do any of them have a sense of humor? (I know one personally, although he was born in Belgium.) 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) |
Reading a description of Welwitschia by a German botanist I don't sense any laughter German botanists don't count. Do any of them have a sense of humor? (I know one personally, although he was born in Belgium.) This reminded me of a couple of things. Firstly, when I was in the US some years ago, I noticed that all our old Irish jokes were told about Poles. Presumably because the Irish have rather more influence over there than they do here. :) Secondly, some years ago I mentioned the Scottish characteristic of parsimony (as seen by most of the rest of the world). This was challenged by a Dutchman who pointed out that while the Scots had the reputation, it was the Dutch who had the application to excel in this endeavour. In fact, he pointed out that the Belgians had an old joke that copper wire was invented by two Dutchmen fighting over a penny. Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
In article ,
"Cereus-validus" wrote: Is it true that in Oz you look at Baobobs standing on your head so that they can seem to grow right-side up? Hey, Celluloid! You need to broaden your horizons. Plenty of Baobabs (assuming you did mean them) in this half of the globe. In fact I would suggest they are properly more southern than northern: Baum D A (1995) A systematic revision of Adansonia (Bombacaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 82(3): 440-470 Sorry about your not being able to get a woody, bloker. No worries Toy Boy. Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
I know there are Baobabs in Oz.
That's why I mentioned them specifically, you fool. You are getting dizzy constantly standing on your head living on the other side of the looking glass, kangaroo boy. "Phred" wrote in message ... In article , "Cereus-validus" wrote: Is it true that in Oz you look at Baobobs standing on your head so that they can seem to grow right-side up? Hey, Celluloid! You need to broaden your horizons. Plenty of Baobabs (assuming you did mean them) in this half of the globe. In fact I would suggest they are properly more southern than northern: Baum D A (1995) A systematic revision of Adansonia (Bombacaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 82(3): 440-470 Sorry about your not being able to get a woody, bloker. No worries Toy Boy. Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
Phred schreef
Secondly, some years ago I mentioned the Scottish characteristic of parsimony (as seen by most of the rest of the world). This was challenged by a Dutchman who pointed out that while the Scots had the reputation, it was the Dutch who had the application to excel in this endeavour. In fact, he pointed out that the Belgians had an old joke that copper wire was invented by two Dutchmen fighting over a penny. ******* The Scots borrowed lots of things from the Dutch, like golf. PvR |
Tree definitions vary widely with minimum heights, often at maturity,
of 10, 12, 13, 15 or 20 feet or no specific minimum, just "tall." Some limit trees to seed plants but seedless plants such as tree ferns, giant horsetails and tree lycopods are usually considered trees. Most definitions require that the stem be woody, which would probably exclude banana, but at least one requires that a tree simply be tall. Some definitions do not even require that a tree's main stem be self-supporting so woody vines might qualify as trees by some of these definitions. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&q=define:tree http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tree The term tree can be applied to many bonsai but the definition of bonsai itself includes a modification of plant size. The definition of bonsai usually mentions a plant or tree that has been intentionally miniaturized or dwarfed. The term miniaturized or dwarfed overrides any height minimum in the definition of tree, as does "dwarf tree." People may prefer to refer to a young specimen of a tree species as a tree seedling, sapling or young tree to indicate that it had not yet met the minimum height for a tree. In some areas, there are pygmy forests where soils or environmental conditions limit mature tree height to well below 10 feet. They are still trees but might better be described as pygmy trees or dwarfed trees. When used in tree rose, tree geranium, tree lantana, tree coleus, etc. the meaning of tree is that the plant has a tree shape with a single main stem and crown of foliage but does not necessarily meet the 10 foot-plus minimum height. Tree roses, tree geraniums, etc. are also called standards. Woody vines, such as Wisteria spp. and Campsis radicans, can be trained to have a single, self-supporting stem so they look like trees but usually don't meet the 10 foot or more minimum either. So-called clump birch are sometimes the result of planting three saplings in the same hole so they may represent multiple trees rather than multiple trunks. Welwitschia is often referred to as a tree or dwarf tree, which seems reasonable. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...a+tree&spell=1 (Iris Cohen) wrote in message ... 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. 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 some areas, there are pygmy forests where soils or environmental
conditions limit mature tree height to well below 10 feet. They are still trees but might better be described as pygmy trees or dwarfed trees. There are areas in the rainforests like that. They are called elfin forest. In the dry areas of California, it is called chaparral. In the countries around the Mediterranean, it is called maqui. 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) |
David Hershey schreef
Welwitschia is often referred to as a tree or dwarf tree, which seems reasonable. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...a+tree&spell=1 ******** A tenuous line of reasoning! Welwitschia (only) gives 14200 hits Welwitschia plant gives 4270 hits Welwitschia tree gives 3110 hits Welwitschia car gives 2640 hits "Welwitschia plant" gives 322 hits "Welwitschia tree" gives 4 hits Going by number of hits and by this line of reasoning the idea that Welwitschia is a car is almost as likely as the idea that it is a tree. You might as well say that as 4/322 = 0.0124 that the idea that Welwitschia is a tree has a presence well below the 5% border and is statististically not significant. Actually the first listed hit for Welwitschia http://www.namibweb.com/welwitschia.htm has it pretty much right: " The plant resembles a woody carrot. " PvR |
That only goes to prove that using hits on the internet as a source for
statistical data is INSANE. That's almost as bad as asking people on the street advice on quantum mechanics. "P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message ... David Hershey schreef Welwitschia is often referred to as a tree or dwarf tree, which seems reasonable. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...a+tree&spell=1 ******** A tenuous line of reasoning! Welwitschia (only) gives 14200 hits Welwitschia plant gives 4270 hits Welwitschia tree gives 3110 hits Welwitschia car gives 2640 hits "Welwitschia plant" gives 322 hits "Welwitschia tree" gives 4 hits Going by number of hits and by this line of reasoning the idea that Welwitschia is a car is almost as likely as the idea that it is a tree. You might as well say that as 4/322 = 0.0124 that the idea that Welwitschia is a tree has a presence well below the 5% border and is statististically not significant. Actually the first listed hit for Welwitschia http://www.namibweb.com/welwitschia.htm has it pretty much right: " The plant resembles a woody carrot. " PvR |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter