Actually, a palm tree is every bit as much of a tree as any other tree. Claiming that all maples or pines are trees is also way, way off base. I think you are trying to read too much into the definition of "tree". There is no real scientific definition of "tree" that I've ever seen. The word "tree" represents more of an abstract concept or human perception than anything else.

An interesting debate. What might be also interesting is a debate about whether information about trees or anything else, some of which might involve time and/or money to collect, ought to be free.

According to Wikipedia, "there is no universally recognized, precise definition." I guess that means you have license to argue about it to your heart's content, even with a renowned botanist. :)

if the interweb fails... its not its fault ...

its that you arent using the correct terms to search ...

which you cant do.. because you dont know them..

which is the whole point of you trying to use the WWW in the first place ...

lol.. its a vicious circle ...

so at that point you try something like at the link.. just try a dictionary ... look for the 'terms of art' they use .. and keep expanding your quest for knowledge from there... the first link says ..and the first terms of art would be:

woody perennial plant having a single usually elongate main stem

which means trees arent a grass.. because grass doenst have a woody trunk ... aka a elongate main stem ...

ken

Here is a link that might be useful: link

There's no reason to get into an arguement over this and a botonist would consider this a non issue. The distinction between shrubs and trees is largely a matter of form.

Ken, that's amazing. A Webster's definition that is probably one of the very worst definitions I have ever hear for any word. I'd give that definition a solid rating of FAIL MISERABLY!!! That definition would preclude a large percentage of what I think 999 out of 1000 people would consider a tree! I am very disappointed in Webster's for that one (although I find many of their plant-related and science-related definitions lacking).

If you believe Ken's definitions, the first picture isn't a tree and the second isn't wood:
{{gwi:379889}}
{{gwi:379890}}

jesus rhiz and brandon ..

i was trying to teach them how to find terms of art.. for further a search.. WHEN YOU DONT KNOW THE WORDS TO SEARCH FOR ..

exactly what did you add to that thought process.. other than ridicule???

teach a man like mcgyver to fish.. and you feed him for life

or just throw fish at ken and let mcgyver starve to death ...

crikey.. if i didnt love you both dearly. i would be mad.. of which i am not ...

now give the boy some TERMS OF ART .. so he can use a search engine .. and learn ...

try the link

ken

Here is a link that might be useful: 5th link down explains the root of the issue... see what i did there.. lol ....

Ken, I still don't get it. How can you teach someone to come up with a definition by giving them a definition that doesn't coincide with the ideas normally associated with a term? I'm not sure about teaching mcgyver to fish, but I do know he's not gonna become an arborist by reading Webster's "whack" definitions. LOL

OK, here's a quick stab at a definition, and, yes, I know there are issues with this definition too. I'm definitely not satisfied with it, but at least it's a start.

Tree - a plant with the general form of an elongated trunk, or multiple trunks, supporting foliage at some distance above the ground, or, a plant which would typically be expected to have such form.

Defining "tree" is like defining "love"; the word brings up an idea, but the idea is hard to pin down with words. Don't you just love trees!

Just lick it. If it tastes like a tree then it's a tree

Wood and size are the main criteria. It might have a million different trunks, but if its 100 feet tall and those trunks are made of wood, I don't think anyone will argue that its not a tree. Meanwhile, it might have a single wood trunk, but if its 2 feet tall, most people won't argue that it is a tree (unless its only a few years old :) ).

I'm wondering if by "palm" the OP was really thinking of "banana". Banana's look like trees, but don't have woody trunks, so they aren't trees. You have to cut one down sometimes to figure that out.

Isn't there a botanical classification of trees, monocot versus dicot? The latter are the deciduous, the former comprise mostly the rest. The distinction comes from the arrangement of xylem and phloem tubes in the trunk. The monocots are primitive, the dicots are more recent evolutionary developments.

I think this is correct, but did not google it up to check.

If this is so, hard to believe that there are not evolutionary definitions of trees.

Monocot and dicot are divisions of angiosperms (flowering plants). Angiosperms include a majority of trees, but certainly not all (gymnosperms, for example, are where conifers belong).

So... well no, monocot vs. dicot has really nothing to do with trees versus not trees.

This post was edited by famartin on Wed, Jun 19, 13 at 6:50

Trees are more common among dicots than monocots, however; palms are monocots, while the vast majority of other flowering plants we call trees are dicots.

I heard somewhere that palm trees and bamboo aren't trees because their trunks are fibrous, not real wood which would make them grass, right? Even though they can reach hundreds of feet tall. Because the "trunk" on a grass plant (which is really a stem, I know) is nothing but fibers bringing water to the foliage from the roots in the soil. We call palm trees "trees" because you aren't going to say after a hurricane to your insurance company "Some grass fell on my house causing the roof to cave in." They'll think you're joking.

Bamboo, at least, is definitely not a tree. Wikipedia has a decent description:

"Bamboo is a kind of grass, which explains the speed of growth. This means that there's lots of it, and when it's harvested it grows itself back again quickly enough not to leave a dent in the eco-system.[13] Unlike all trees, individual bamboo stems, or culms, emerge from the ground at their full diameter and grow to their full height in a single growing season of three to four months. During these several months, each new shoot grows vertically into a culm with no branching out until the majority of the mature height is reached. Then, the branches extend from the nodes and leafing out occurs. In the next year, the pulpy wall of each culm slowly hardens. During the third year, the culm hardens further. The shoot is now considered a fully mature culm. Over the next 2�"5 years (depending on species), fungus begins to form on the outside of the culm, which eventually penetrate and overcome the culm. Around 5�"8 years later (species and climate dependent), the fungal growths cause the culm to collapse and decay. This brief life means culms are ready for harvest and suitable for use in construction within about three to seven years. Individual bamboo culms do not get any taller or larger in diameter in subsequent years than they do in their first year, and they do not replace any growth lost from pruning or natural breakage. Bamboos have a wide range of hardiness depending on species and locale. Small or young specimens of an individual species will produce small culms initially. As the clump and its rhizome system mature, taller and larger culms will be produced each year until the plant approaches its particular species limits of height and diameter."

that silver maple is still a tree....it has been coppiced.....if it had not been cut then it would have only had one trunk

"...monocot versus dicot? The latter are the deciduous, the former comprise mostly the rest."

Wow....just wow!
____________________

"I heard somewhere..."

There's your sign

"...palm trees and bamboo aren't trees because..."

I can't think of any valid reason for such a limitation. Even if one could make such a definition, you'd have an up hill climb getting the majority of everyone else to agree with the definition. When most people see a palm tree, they see it as a tree. When I see a palm tree, I certainly know the differences in it and say a maple or a pine, but still have no doubt that it's every bit as much of a tree!
____________________

"that silver maple is still a tree....it has been coppiced..."

How do you know this?

"...if it had not been cut then it would have only had one trunk"

This is complete conjecture on your part and has no basis in fact.

The definition of 'tree' is not botanical and is subjective. So no need to belabor - it is in the eye of the beholder. Think of how a bonsai practitioner defines a tree...

I always understood the definition to be that trees are woody plants. Palms do not put on rings of wood every year. Instead they grow up from the crown adding new leaves and shedding the older ones.

Shrubs (another woody plant) are distinguished from trees by their smaller size and multiple trunks or canes. And yes, there are plenty of trees that sucker likes shrubs but even then you usually see one main trunk and lots of smaller suckers surrounding it.

An interesting article on Coconut timber is on Wikipedia...

Here is a link that might be useful: Coconut timber

There are botanical definitions of trees and there are layman definitions. It seems there are both broad and narrow definitions of what a 'tree' is, even among the plant experts (botanists). So, no surprise that the laymen is confused.

For me, if I can tie a hammock between two, self-standing structures sprouting leaves, providing shade for this generation and the next, and can recline under a green canopy that inspires quiet reflection of higher powers, then, I am in the company of trees.

Enjoy the weekend!

And then, just to throw a spanner in the works, there's always the welwitschia which is included in Palgrave's "Trees of Southern Africa".

http://www.plantzafrica.com/plantwxyz/welwitschia.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welwitschia