What is a tree?

[MonkeySage]

Seems like a weird question, but it is something I've been thinking about(had a lot of time on my hands).

Long ago, we had forests filled with gigantic ferns. From what I understand, these aren't classified as trees, even though they look like trees.

And palms have more in common with grass than they have with most trees. (They're monocots like corn, wheat, or barley)

So, does that make a palm a tree, or a grass?

The thing that makes this more confusing for me; most angiosperm trees are dicots. But not all trees are dicots; gymnosperms are not.

[Eldan]

There's no proper botanical definition of tree. It's a plant with a woody stem and branches, but it's not a monophyletic group and what's included and excluded is often a bit arbitrary.

All definitions that people have come up with are post-fact, really. We know what trees are, now we need to define it.

One mostly accepted definition is that they have secondary woody growth. They have a persistent stem that gets thicker each year.

[factotum]

Yeah, "tree" is one of those definitions that basically comes down to, "If it's commonly called a tree, then it's a tree". Bamboo is called a tree, for instance, despite actually being a member of the grass family (unlike palms, which I believe are part of their own family of plants).

[The Glyphstone]

And banana trees are technically really big berry bushes, right?

[Togath]

And at one point in the far distant past, earth had massive fungi instead of "trees"

[Tvtyrant]

I always thought a tree was a plant with distinct roots and branches separated by a single trunk. This isn't actually true, since some trees have multiple trunks off a single root system, but that is how I tend to think of them.

[Grinner]

I like to think of them as well-behaved woody vines. I once saw a picture on the Internet of a tree which had fallen over, but instead of dying, it sprouted some other trees from its side. It's probably highly unusual, but the ability of that tree to convert its stem into root strikes me as being uncannily vine-like behavior.

[Jeff the Green]

Paging Justice Stewart! Paging Justice Potter Stewart!

[Murk]

Even worse is that there's plants who can be trees depending on their growth and location, but can also be bushes/shrubberies. If you put them in a forest or high-density growth area, they'll grow high, spindly and woody, with leaves on top, and be a tree. If you put them in a solitary location without any competition, they'll stay low, without a clear trunk, and grow as a round bush.
Which means "tree" isn't even always a definition of species but of individuals.
Which is weird.

[Acanous]

Not to mention that "Tree" is a slang term for a group of arbors. Technically "Tree" was a multi-inclusive term for any food bearing plant that didn't die in the process of that food being eaten.

It's just evolved as a term for "any cylindrical stemmed plant taller than a man which has branches, roots, and a trunk"

Pretty sure that trees must have bark as well.

[Flickerdart]

What is a tree? A miserable pile of roots! But enough talk. Have at thee!

[Yuki Akuma]

What is a tree? A miserable pile of roots! But enough talk. Have at thee!

Damn you I just came into this thread to do that joke.

[cobaltstarfire]

And banana trees are technically really big berry bushes, right?

I think bananas (the plant) are considered herbs?

Then again herb might as well be just as generic as "tree"

Meanwhile poking the wikipedia page for palms describes them as trees, shrubs, or vines dependent on their growth style.


Plants are just weird, and a lot of words for them are really generic aren't they?

[Flickerdart]

Plants are just weird, and a lot of words for them are really generic aren't they?

There's no such thing as fish.

[Eldan]

There are fish. Fish are vertebrates that aren't in that oen group that aren't fish.

It's not a monophyletic group. That doesn't mean it's not a group.

But again. As I said, there is a definition for tree. Secondary growth. It's just not universally accepted and a bit post-hoc.

[BannedInSchool]

I'm a hairy, tree-dwelling land fish, so there. But wait, if there are no trees then what am I?

[Maryring]

Delusional.

[Fri]

Okay, what about vegetables. What are vegetables. Potato is totally a vegetable right? I'm eating vegetable regularly right?

[SirKazum]

As far as I'm concerned, a "vegetable" is anything in the Plant kingdom (as in "animal, vegetable or mineral"). I don't know about the idiomatic usage, which is probably much more practical than academic, so I guess a vegetable in that sense would be whatever people traditionally call vegetables (that ol' "I know it when I see it" criterion).

The problem is with biological categories that have traditional roots from a time before there was any serious study of biology, and are too deeply rooted in our culture to do away with. "Tree" certainly seems like one of those. "Fish" might be one as well, although at least it's been mostly trimmed down to a somewhat sensible "non-tetrapod vertebrate" - I bet, if you asked people before Linnaeus's time, they'd say a whale is a fish, which it most definitely is not by today's standards. I guess that notion of "fish is anything from underwater that's not a plant or a bug" survives in names such as "jellyfish" and "starfish".

Speaking of which, the noun "bug" also bugs me. What's a bug? Any kind of arthropod? So are people just using a simile or metaphor or whatever (let's not even go down that road) when they call microbes "bugs", as in "I'm so sick, must've caught a bug"? I guess it bugs me so much because, in my native Portuguese, there's no translation for the word "bug" - there are words for "insect", and "arachnid", and "crustacean", and so on, but not "bug".

[Grinner]

Okay, what about vegetables. What are vegetables. Potato is totally a vegetable right? I'm eating vegetable regularly right?

A potato is a tuber, so it's like a plant's storage bin.

For my part, I'd say a vegetable is a plant or portion thereof that I can eat, although this may bring up issues with distinguishing fruits and vegetables.

[Arcane_Secrets]

Speaking of which, the noun "bug" also bugs me. What's a bug? Any kind of arthropod? So are people just using a simile or metaphor or whatever (let's not even go down that road) when they call microbes "bugs", as in "I'm so sick, must've caught a bug"? I guess it bugs me so much because, in my native Portuguese, there's no translation for the word "bug" - there are words for "insect", and "arachnid", and "crustacean", and so on, but not "bug".

"Bugs" still refer to a specific order within the Insecta called the Hemiptera, though, with an extensive definition far beyond just being used generically for microbes or insects in general.

[factotum]

I think bananas (the plant) are considered herbs?

The actual banana fruit is botanically a berry, though. Fun fact: strawberries and raspberries are *not* actually berries, despite being named such (they're both aggregate fruits, but "strawaggregate fruit" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well).

[Kato]

A potato is a tuber, so it's like a plant's storage bin.

For my part, I'd say a vegetable is a plant or portion thereof that I can eat, although this may bring up issues with distinguishing fruits and vegetables.

I don't think there is a strict botanic definition of vegetables. The distinction with fruit is that.. well, vegetables are NOT fruit. Fruit are the things plants use to spread their seeds. Potatoes, carrots, etc are not the fruits of the respective plants.

[Hackman]

A tree is a connected forest.

[SirKazum]

"Bugs" still refer to a specific order within the Insecta called the Hemiptera, though, with an extensive definition far beyond just being used generically for microbes or insects in general.

So, say, spiders aren't "bugs"? Huh, weird. Do people popularly refer to them as "bugs" though? And I guess most people would call non-Hemiptera insects "bugs", such as say, houseflies. Popular, common-sense-based categories can be a pain in the ass when it comes to science

[Eldan]

So, say, spiders aren't "bugs"? Huh, weird. Do people popularly refer to them as "bugs" though? And I guess most people would call non-Hemiptera insects "bugs", such as say, houseflies. Popular, common-sense-based categories can be a pain in the ass when it comes to science

Bug is one of those words that has different meanings depending on whether we are talking science or common usage. In common usage "bug" is like "vermin". "Small animal I don't like". Science also uses the same word for the Hemiptera, which are insects that use a certain arrangement of sucking mouth parts and mostly feed on plants. Lots of things in the Hemiptera people might recognize, actually. Leafhoppers, aphids, shield bugs...

Another one of those is "fruit". In science, it's a structure that is made from certain tissues and contains seeds. In a culinary sense, it's a part of a plant that's sweet.

Lots of words do that. A dwarf is a mythological creature, or a small human, or a small star. A matrix is a mathematical arrangement or a computing term or a popular movie.

[Grinner]

I don't think there is a strict botanic definition of vegetables. The distinction with fruit is that.. well, vegetables are NOT fruit. Fruit are the things plants use to spread their seeds. Potatoes, carrots, etc are not the fruits of the respective plants.

I was thinking more along the lines of bell peppers, although Wikipedia now informs me that, strictly speaking, bell peppers are considered fruits.

[Eldan]

Oh, and yes, absolutely no botanical definition of vegetable. That's a purely culinary term that basically means "edible parts of a plant that are not (culinarily speaking) fruits".

That was actually one of the questions on my botany oral exam. (Then I got a list of vegetables and had to define what part of the plant they were in botany terms, tubers, stems, leaves, roots, etc.)

[snowblizz]

I don't think there is a strict botanic definition of vegetables. The distinction with fruit is that.. well, vegetables are NOT fruit. Fruit are the things plants use to spread their seeds. Potatoes, carrots, etc are not the fruits of the respective plants.

In Swedish vegetables are named "green things", literally, and potatoes and carrots etc are "root fruits" which is kinda accurate as to their function.

[cobaltstarfire]

The actual banana fruit is botanically a berry, though. Fun fact: strawberries and raspberries are *not* actually berries, despite being named such (they're both aggregate fruits, but "strawaggregate fruit" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well).

Well yes, but I was talking about the plant part, glyphstone already mentioned that bananas are berries, and I never disputed it.