(Iris Cohen) wrote in
:

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)

Chihuahuas are still dogs, because they fit into the size range that
is part of the definition of a dog. Juniperus sabina is often sold
to newbies for bonsai, they can be made to represent a tree, but
don't typically get to tree size in the wild. There are still a few
women alive who had their feet bound as children, their feet are
very small as a result. Are you saying that they really have size 8
feet?

Sean

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

In article , (Iris Cohen) wrote:
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.

There are areas of "heath" vegetation on mountain slopes here in NE Oz
where combinations of poor soil, restricted water, and high wind, have
created dwarf forests of nornal tree species. For example, I recall
an area on an exposed ridge near Lakeland (SW of Cooktown) where
_Eucalyptus_ species were seeding at below knee height.


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

(Iris Cohen) wrote in message ...
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)

Chaparral and maqui are something different from pygmy or elfin
forests or krummholz. (In California, what people think of as
chaparral is formally "coastal sage scrub".) It supports oaks and
other trees of considerable size. But the flora characteristic of
these regions consists mainly of species that do not naturally have
the habit of trees, not of tree species dwarfed by environmental
conditions.

--
Chris Green