| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
leaves of a tree
Hello,
does anybody know how many leaves trees are supposed to have? (in summer of course ;-) ) What is the maximum estimated number? What about trees with needles? How many needles can they have? Are there estimates about the leave "density" e.g. how many leaves per cubic meter? How does that differ between the different species? Thanks, daniel |
Do you have a bar bet running on the answer?
The instructions booklet is provided by the maker. "daniel" wrote in message om... Hello, does anybody know how many leaves trees are supposed to have? (in summer of course ;-) ) What is the maximum estimated number? What about trees with needles? How many needles can they have? Are there estimates about the leave "density" e.g. how many leaves per cubic meter? How does that differ between the different species? Thanks, daniel |
does anybody know how many leaves trees are supposed to have?
I hope this isn't a troll question, but serious curiosity. There is no specific number. It depends on species, location, and many other factors. The larger the tree, the more leaves it will have. Generally, a tree with large leaves, like a sycamore, will have fewer of them. The same species in shade will have fewer & larger leaves than in sun. At one extreme, Welwitschia mirabilis, a primitive conifer from Africa, has only two leaves its entire life, which may be 2000 years. The same two leaves keep growing from the base as they wear out on the end. At the other extreme, there are trees that grow in the desert or the far north, both conifers and flowering trees, like Junipers and Tamarisks, which have thousands of tiny scale leaves or needles you couldn't begin to count. If a tree is healthy and growing, you can assume it has as many leaves as it should. 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) |
"Cereus-validus" wrote in
: "daniel" wrote in message om... Hello, does anybody know how many leaves trees are supposed to have? (in summer of course ;-) ) What is the maximum estimated number? What about trees with needles? How many needles can they have? Are there estimates about the leave "density" e.g. how many leaves per cubic meter? How does that differ between the different species? Thanks, daniel Do you have a bar bet running on the answer? The instructions booklet is provided by the maker. (top posting corrected) It actually looks more like a homework question. Sean |
|
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. "Sean Houtman" wrote in message news:1095194978.hNTEkItUsoX/iqppnCe+QA@teranews... (Iris Cohen) wrote in : does anybody know how many leaves trees are supposed to have? I hope this isn't a troll question, but serious curiosity. There is no specific number. It depends on species, location, and many other factors. The larger the tree, the more leaves it will have. Generally, a tree with large leaves, like a sycamore, will have fewer of them. The same species in shade will have fewer & larger leaves than in sun. At one extreme, Welwitschia mirabilis, a primitive conifer from Africa, has only two leaves its entire life, which may be 2000 years. The same two leaves keep growing from the base as they wear out on the end. At the other extreme, there are trees that grow in the desert or the far north, both conifers and flowering trees, like Junipers and Tamarisks, which have thousands of tiny scale leaves or needles you couldn't begin to count. If a tree is healthy and growing, you can assume it has as many leaves as it should. 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 isn't a tree, but... An important factor in counting the number of leaves on a tree is time of year. Since Daniel is posting in fairly decent English, he is likely in a north temperate area. If he would wait till some time in December, the easy answer to his question would often be 'none'. However, a quick scan and guess of the 25 year old mulberry tree outside my window looks like perhaps about 50 thousand leaves. I would expect that a large Giant redwood would have several million leaves. Sean |
An important factor in counting the number of leaves on a tree is
time of year. Since Daniel is posting in fairly decent English, he Thanks for the flowers. is likely in a north temperate area. If he would wait till some time in December, the easy answer to his question would often be 'none'. However, a quick scan and guess of the 25 year old mulberry tree outside my window looks like perhaps about 50 thousand leaves. I would expect that a large Giant redwood would have several million leaves. I thought about giving the background of my question when opening the thread but I decided not to do it, due to the fact that I wanted more biological oriented answers. Beside the fact that I was simply curious if there exist reasonable estimates about the maximum amount of leaves/needles of trees my focus was on realistic graphical representation of trees. Most tress I have seen in computergraphics are among the poorest objects. A good representation could aim to draw at least one triangle per leave and let them swing in the wind. I am pretty sure that nobody ever "counted" the leaves of large trees, but there should be reasonable estimates for their amount. e.g. collect all the leaves in autumn for a standalone tree and weigh them. Maybe some inside bilogical knowhow as described in one of the threads could help. Up to now I have seen some guesses. Isn't there some scientific work about this topic? How is the amount of the oxygen/carbon dioxid turnover estimated? Wouldn't it make sense to have some O_2 capacity estimate for leaves of different trees? thanks for your posts, daniel |
"Cereus-validus" wrote in
. com: Welwitschia isn't a tree, but... An important factor in counting the number of leaves on a tree is time of year. Since Daniel is posting in fairly decent English, he is likely in a north temperate area. If he would wait till some time in December, the easy answer to his question would often be 'none'. However, a quick scan and guess of the 25 year old mulberry tree outside my window looks like perhaps about 50 thousand leaves. I would expect that a large Giant redwood would have several million leaves. 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. Sean |
|
Sean Houtman wrote:
generally height. So.. all bonsai are shrubs? Sorry.. couldn't resist.. ;) |
If you look at most pictures of Welwitschia, it doesn't look much like a tree.
It looks like the stuff you throw in the garbage after you made the salad. However, Two thirds of the trunk of a Welwitschia is underground. The two permanent leaves grow out of the top, and the cones appear between them. Since it has a permanent woody trunk, I believe it fits the definition of a tree. Look, it works. Some Welwitschias are 1500 to 2000 years old. 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) |
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. "Sean Houtman" wrote in message news:1095655795.vHDg1ppMHVISnXQw36/VQw@teranews... "Cereus-validus" wrote in . com: Welwitschia isn't a tree, but... An important factor in counting the number of leaves on a tree is time of year. Since Daniel is posting in fairly decent English, he is likely in a north temperate area. If he would wait till some time in December, the easy answer to his question would often be 'none'. However, a quick scan and guess of the 25 year old mulberry tree outside my window looks like perhaps about 50 thousand leaves. I would expect that a large Giant redwood would have several million leaves. 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. Sean |
Oh look, isn't that Sean out in the aviary stunting trees?
Are you done waxing the car already? Remember: Right hand - wax on. Left hand - wacks off!!! "Zeitkind" wrote in message ... Sean Houtman wrote: generally height. So.. all bonsai are shrubs? Sorry.. couldn't resist.. ;) |
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 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) |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:02 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter