332
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 101 points 1 month ago

"Tree" isn't a biological definition. It's a descriptive term for "a tall plant with at least one rigid central trunk." Which means that anything that looks like a tree is probably a tree, regardless of species.

[-] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 month ago
[-] cicadagen@ani.social 12 points 1 month ago

Ayy, welcome to the tree club!

[-] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago
[-] Klairabelle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

TREEEEEESSSS THEY ARE UUUUSSSSSS

[-] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

We welcome you to tree-hood, my fellow arbor

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Do you get pollinated by birds and bees?

[-] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago

That's personal

[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 91 points 1 month ago
[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 32 points 1 month ago

No such thing as a tree? So you mean all those binary trees I've been inverting have been a lie? My whole world is shattered.

[-] flora_explora@beehaw.org 20 points 1 month ago

Indeed, it simply is not a phylogenetic categorization but a physio-ecological one. Tree, like shrub, liana, herbaceous, woody/non-woody are all terms solely used to place plants into functional groups based on how they grow. None of these has to do with their taxonomy.

So the question is, what is a tree and is having secondary growth necessary to be one? Because monocots, like palms are, don't have secondary growth, they use some workarounds. But why should that matter in the definition of a tree? I don't know. So yeah, a coconut palm should be considered a tree. But it hasn't got to do with phylogenetics (like explained in the article you linked).

Also, millennia ago there have been vast forests of lycopods!! Just imagine huge trees that are actually spikemosses. So why shouldn't a palm not be a tree?

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

my definition of a tree is basically "a plant consisting of a single pillar-like robust trunk".

most plants can be trees, especially ones that generally grow as bushes, if they are prodded into doing so by pruning and whatever other pressures, and there are some plants that seem to flip a coin to decide whether they grow into bushes or trees.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 month ago

Of plants native to the Canary Islands, wood independently evolved at least 38 times!

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You forgot about the myth of vegetables.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Except that yes there is. It's just not a scientific term. Same with fish.

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago
[-] GlennMagusHarvey@mander.xyz 20 points 1 month ago

A local park ranger I know likes to remark that our state tree is a grass. (I'm in Florida.)

But I'd say that's also inaccurate. IMO, grasses are in the family Poaceae, and palms are in the family Arecaceae. I guess one could remark that our state tree is a commelinid...but I don't think tourists would get as much of a kick out of that.

[-] flora_explora@beehaw.org 10 points 1 month ago

Typical trees belong to a group of plants called dicots

Whaaaat? Swiftly ignoring all gymnosperms? The temperate zones are full of trees that aren't dicots, or even angiosperms! Focusing on some biological traits that aren't crucial to the definition of a tree sounds like the author already likes their neat categories and wants to retroactively justify them...

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago
[-] criitz@reddthat.com 5 points 1 month ago

Neat read, thanks

[-] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's no widely-accepted scientific definition of a tree.

##PeopleCorrectingPeopleIncorrectly

[-] Downcount@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago
[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Conifers aren't trees by this definition. It seems to completely ignore gymnosperms and even misclassified a couple as dicots like sequoias and junipers.

We need to stop looking for a scientifically coherent category for a tree and ,like fish, embrace the true, intuitive, childlike definition of it as just a form, a trunk with leaves at the top.

[-] GlennMagusHarvey@mander.xyz 13 points 1 month ago

How many social credit points do I lose if I refer to bamboo products as "wood" outside of botany nerd circles?

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago
[-] dogsoahC@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago
[-] ctenidium@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

If I remember correctly, wood consists mainly of cellulose, lignin, and hemi-cellulose. I don't know about bamboo, but I guess it's some kind of woody material.

[-] Seleni@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It’s the lack of lignin (bamboo uses silica as a strengthener) that sets it apart.

But bamboo is a grass, anyways.

[-] ctenidium@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Never doubted bamboo not being a grass. But I didn't know about the silica thing - that's really cool!! Thank you for telling this!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ctenidium@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"Trees" have secondary growth while "palms" have primary growth. At least that is what I have been told in dendrology lectures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_growth

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 2 points 1 month ago

true enough, that doesn't exclude them from being trees though.

[-] NorthWestWind@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

From the coco palm family!

[-] GlennMagusHarvey@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

🎵 Ya ya ya ya ya 🎵

[-] juliebean@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago

it looks like a tree and quacks like a tree though.

[-] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Ironically, in this case, that literally means it's a tree

[-] DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

Trees are the plant version of crabs.

[-] robocall@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you 🌴🥥🍹

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

It's probably going to be political since it's wrong.

The coconut tree (Cocos nucifera) is a member of the palm tree family (Arecaceae) and the only living species of the genus Cocos. The term "coconut" (or the archaic "cocoanut") can refer to the whole coconut palm, the seed, or the fruit, which botanically is a drupe, not a nut. They are ubiquitous in coastal tropical regions and are a cultural icon of the tropics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 7 points 1 month ago

I'm off to edit that wiki, the tree is a bit of a misnomer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecaceae

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

I see a fight coming your way in the talk section, lol. Good luck.

[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Nah, it's correct. Just needs a clarifying sentence. They use the word tree but it's not technically a tree, rather tree-like. The word tree is used for ease, colloquially. They grew like this as they are plants well suited for seaside wind and storms, hurricanes... Wetland plants. The grasses that didn't give up. Tree definitions vary from form vs function, and form is used more colloquially.

Edit: Fixed yayayayyay I need more edits this month

[-] JackRiddle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago

No tree is a tree. "Tree" is not a clearly-defined taxonomical category. Anything that is tree-like gets grouped under the catgory "tree".

[-] GlennMagusHarvey@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

I think it's arguable that "tree" is just a term for a growth habit rather than anything really taxonomically meaningful.

[-] juliebean@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

agreed. my grandma used to have a big ol' tree in her front yard, but it had to get cut down. it didn't die though, and thanks to this unintentional coppicing, it is now an enormous bush. my grandma is very proud of her bush.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago

Okay, and raspberries aren't technically berries at all, but aggregate fruits. In other words, so the fuck what? When you say 'coconut tree', everyone knows what plant you're referring to.

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Da palm grows da coconut and turns da election around

[-] GlennMagusHarvey@mander.xyz 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Time to post one of my favorite songs:

https://youtu.be/PKQPey6L42M

("Da Coconut Nut", by Ryan Cayabyab. This version is probably the one performed by his group, Smokey Mountain.)

This song reminds us that the coconut is not a nut; it is the fruit of the cocopalm.

[-] Cadeillac@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

You can tell it's an Aspen from the way it is

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

I have literature right here that says otherwise.

Ahem..

"A told B, and B told C, I'll beat you to the top of the coconut tree."

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
332 points (90.9% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
1642 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS