"Trees"
UC
different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
others?
MS
Garamond Lethe
Aves.
>
> MS
>
Ron O
Palm trees.
Tree ferns
Ron Okimoto
Free Lunch
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
If I recall correctly, Gingko may be part of their own group, even
though they are flat leaved and deciduous.
John Harshman
There are many others now extant, and many others that are extinct. Now
what you probably meant by "pine" was "gymnosperm", and by "deciduous"
you probably meant "angiosperm". I do believe that all living
gymnosperms are trees, so that may indeed be a single group. But
angiosperms have evolved and lost the tree habit in many different
groups; it is in fact a rare family that doesn't contain some trees and
some non-trees. And there are tree-ferns, gingkos, cycads, and all
manner of those extinct sorts.
r norman
wrote:
It is well recognized that "tree" is not a phylogenetic designation
but merely indicates any large woody-ish sort of perennial plant.
In times past, there were giant forests of ferns and horsetails, both
of them quite distinct types of plants phylogenetically. I believe
the whisk ferns, another distinct group, also may have grown as trees.
All of these belong to the category of vascular-but-not-seed plants.
In the category of seed plants, there are a number of gymnosperms that
are biologically quite distinct: gingko, cycad, and conifer
(including pines and the "softwood" trees) that all grow as trees. I
don't know of any gnetophytes that grow that way but there might well
be. In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
"hardwood" trees.
Please, please PLEASE don't start in about vernacular and linnean!
John Harshman
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:30:10 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 6:16 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
>>> different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
>>> others?
>>>
>>> MS
>> Palm trees.
>>
>> Tree ferns
>
> It is well recognized that "tree" is not a phylogenetic designation
> but merely indicates any large woody-ish sort of perennial plant.
>
> In times past, there were giant forests of ferns and horsetails, both
> of them quite distinct types of plants phylogenetically. I believe
> the whisk ferns, another distinct group, also may have grown as trees.
> All of these belong to the category of vascular-but-not-seed plants.
> In the category of seed plants, there are a number of gymnosperms that
> are biologically quite distinct: gingko, cycad, and conifer
> (including pines and the "softwood" trees) that all grow as trees. I
> don't know of any gnetophytes that grow that way but there might well
> be.
There aren't. There are only three living species: Welwitschia, Ephedra,
and dang I forget the third. Ah (duh!): Gnetum.
>n In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
> palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
> "hardwood" trees.
>
> Please, please PLEASE don't start in about vernacular and linnean!
You secretly want him to, don't you?
R. Baldwin
8ad1-ca4...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Ericaciae (heather family) includes several species of tree called Arbutus
(also Madrona or Strawberry Tree), and also rhododendrons which include
several small trees.
rmacfarl
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC8BA9C...@216.168.3.30...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_plant
If you look at the phylogenetic classification of vascular plants
in Wikipedia, I think you would find that all of the
classifications in the Euphyllophytina have plants which are
described as trees. This includes tree-ferns and all the
spermatophytes (seed-plants, including pines / gymnosperms, and
angiosperms / flowering plants.)
Paul Ciszek
In article <sdsbg592pm3a73bua...@4ax.com>,
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>be. In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
>palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
>"hardwood" trees.
I am not a botonist. Are palm trees flowering plants?
During the "tropical oils" food scare some years back, I read that the
plants containing so-called "tropical oils" belonged to one branch of a
split that went way, way back in the history of land plants. And I
thought palms were definately on the "tropical oil" side of that split.
Flowering plants, on the other hand, didn't show up until there were
dinosaurs, or so I thought.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <he56cb$55s$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <sdsbg592pm3a73bua...@4ax.com>,
>r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>be. In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
>>palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
>>"hardwood" trees.
>
>I am not a botonist. Are palm trees flowering plants?
>
>During the "tropical oils" food scare some years back, I read that the
>plants containing so-called "tropical oils" belonged to one branch of a
>split that went way, way back in the history of land plants. And I
>thought palms were definately on the "tropical oil" side of that split.
>Flowering plants, on the other hand, didn't show up until there were
>dinosaurs, or so I thought.
Whoops, wiki says that palms are flowering plants, and only go back
about 80 million years. So, can anyone explain the tropical oils/
non-tropical oils division?
David Hare-Scott
There are hardwood trees (angiosperms) and softwood trees (gymnosperms) the
latter includes pine trees, which are two lines of ancestry characterised by
the structure of the wood and having flowers or not. There are deciduous
and evergreen trees which are two ways of behaving. Being hardwood doesn't
imply deciduous and being softwood doesn't imply evergreen. All four
possible combinations of characteristics are known. Does that help?
David
John Harshman
> In article <sdsbg592pm3a73bua...@4ax.com>,
> r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> be. In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
>> palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
>> "hardwood" trees.
>
> I am not a botonist. Are palm trees flowering plants?
Yes.
> During the "tropical oils" food scare some years back, I read that the
> plants containing so-called "tropical oils" belonged to one branch of a
> split that went way, way back in the history of land plants. And I
> thought palms were definately on the "tropical oil" side of that split.
> Flowering plants, on the other hand, didn't show up until there were
> dinosaurs, or so I thought.
I suspect you are talking about monocots vs. dicots. Both are flowering
plants. Palms are monocots. So are grasses, lilies, and various others.
Dicots aren't a real group, actually; it's now known that monocots are
just one branch of the dicots. Surely, though, the Mesozoic would count
as "way, way back". Wouldn't it?
John Harshman
> In article <he56cb$55s$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> In article <sdsbg592pm3a73bua...@4ax.com>,
>> r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> be. In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
>>> palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
>>> "hardwood" trees.
>> I am not a botonist. Are palm trees flowering plants?
>>
>> During the "tropical oils" food scare some years back, I read that the
>> plants containing so-called "tropical oils" belonged to one branch of a
>> split that went way, way back in the history of land plants. And I
>> thought palms were definately on the "tropical oil" side of that split.
>> Flowering plants, on the other hand, didn't show up until there were
>> dinosaurs, or so I thought.
>
> Whoops, wiki says that palms are flowering plants, and only go back
> about 80 million years. So, can anyone explain the tropical oils/
> non-tropical oils division?
>
talking about a fairly small group, as plant groups go. Non-tropical
oils would be everything else. It's like asking about the division
between French and non-French languages.
Earle Jones
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
*
Q: Can you name a gymnosperm that is not a conifer?
A: Gingko biloba.
earle
*
r norman
What Paul is asking about is the health problem associated with
certain oils depending on degree of saturation.
It is a relatively long story to tell because it requires a fair
amount of background. Cell membranes are built on a core of fats/oils
(lipids) and the liquidity of lipids is very temperature dependent.
Membranes function best when the lipid is not all that fluid. In
fact, they should be not too far removed from their melting point (aka
freezing point).
The liquidity (and the melting/freezing point) of lipids depends on
the degree of saturation; Saturated fats have very high melting
points, so high they are often solid at room temperature as in butter
or lard. Monounsaturated fats have lower melting points and
polyunsaturated fats the lowest and remain fluid at very low
temperatures.
Put the two together: plants and animals that live only in very warm
climates, like tropical palms or birds and mammals (that hive very
high body temperatures) have saturated lipids and plants and animals
that live in colder climes (temperate zone plants and, especially,
cold water fish) have polyunsaturated lipids.
Finally, consumption of saturated fats is associated with increased
blood cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease. So palm kernel
oil and coconut oil (coconut being a palm, of course) were verboten.
Chocolate was suspect even though not a palm.
It is physiological ecology, not evolutionary descent, that is at play
here.
UC
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:30:10 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
I put "trees" in quote precisely to indicate that I was interested in
learning more about what we call trees. I have a limited knowledge of
botany, but I do recognize "evergreens" are distinct group from other
trees like maples and ash. Palm trees...what are they?
Free Lunch
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>So, what vernacular terms are they?
>
>Evergreens, pines, and palms? What else are there?
Pines are a type of evergreen. Gingkos are completely separate from the
other broadleaves -- some of which are evergreen.
Free Lunch
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 20, 9:21 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So, evergreens, palms, and deciduous? What is the vernacular term for
>deciduous?
Maybe leafy, but gingko are not part of that group even though they are
deciduous broadleafed trees.
Why do you care about the vernacular? It can mislead more often than it
informs.
UC
So, what vernacular terms are they?
Evergreens, deciduous, and palms? What else are there?
Kermit
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:34:18 -0800, John Harshman
>
>
>
> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Paul Ciszek wrote:
> >> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <sdsbg592pm3a73buakp37qhg3iimpmj...@4ax.com>,
This makes sense, and I probably should have understood this years
ago. Education is so often explaining what is obvious in retrospect.
Thank you.
Kermit
Ernest Major
<uranium-c49b8494-96f9-...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.co
m>, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes
>deciduous?
>
The vernacular term for deciduous is deciduous. The gingko is deciduous;
4 genera of conifers are deciduous; at least some tree ferns are
deciduous in at least some environments; most temperature "broad-leaved"
trees are deciduous, as are some tropical "broad-leaved" trees.
"Broad-leaved" trees are a heterogenous group belonging to many
different angiosperm clades.
--
alias Ernest Major
UC
> In message
> <uranium-c49b8494-96f9-48ea-8b20-2ac9e9432...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.co
> m>, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes
OK, based NOT on whether the leaves fall off or not, what are the
classes using layman's terms?
Evergreens (pines?)
Deciduous....? (Hardwoods?)
and....????
UC
> In message
> <uranium-c49b8494-96f9-48ea-8b20-2ac9e9432...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.co
If we were suddenly thrust back 80 million years...could we survive?
What would we eat? Would a lot more things be poisonous to us? When
did grasses evolve?
Ernest Major
<uranium-b64a1f17-928f-...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.co
The leaves fall off all trees. The difference is that some trees have a
seasonally dormant period during which they are leafless (in which case
most leaves fall off shortly beforehand) and others are continuously
leafy, and drop old leaves continuously.
If you want to classify trees NOT on whether the leaves fall of or not,
you shouldn't be using the terms evergreen and deciduous. I would have
hoped by now that you had realised that whether a tree is evergreen or
deciduous is not a particularly taxonomically significant feature.
If you want a classification of plants start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryophyte
and follow the links.
--
alias Ernest Major
UC
I agree, but of course pines differ in appearance and presumably
history from the "other trees" (maples, ash, etc.), which have a
family "resemblance". Is there no name for maple, birch, ash, etc.
trees, to distinguish them from pines and palms, other than
"deciduous"? The vernacular is wanting in a term here, I think...we
just have "tree" then species names...then there's "hardwood", which
offers little about the structure of the tree or its appearance...
Are pine trees softer than other types?
Mark Isaak
> On 2009-11-20, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
>> different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there others?
>
> Aves.
Penguins are the best trees.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Free Lunch
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 20, 12:23 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, pinewood is softer than maple or other hardwoods.
I think you are doing a good job of explaining to yourself why
scientists do not use vernacular terms to try to explain relationships
among trees.
Free Lunch
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 20, 11:27 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Probably
>What would we eat?
Food. There were plenty of plants and animals around. We seem to like
herbivores along with plants. That would work.
>Would a lot more things be poisonous to us?
Maybe
>When did grasses evolve?
At least 55 million years ago, possibly more than 65 million
UC
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:42:28 -0800 (PST), UC
Of course, I am just shocked by the lack of a single term to describe
"non-pine" and "non-palm" trees. I just realized what a dearth of
terms there is for such a common thing!
John Harshman
UC
Hardwood? Well that describes the wood itself, not the trees as a
group...not like "pines" which is a nice word. "Dicot"? Not familiar
with word that at all. Although I have heard the term "hardwood" a
lot, I never knew it meant non-pine trees. I did not know pine was
softer than maple or beech or whatever. I did not know that "hardwood"
referred to maple beech etc. I thought it referred to cherry,
mahogany, etc.
Garamond Lethe
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:29:00 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> On 2009-11-20, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
>>> different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there others?
>>
>> Aves.
>
> Penguins are the best trees.
>
Ymir
<uranium-1faa98e7-bf0e-...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
m>,
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If we were suddenly thrust back 80 million years...could we survive?
If you mean the people on this group, probably not. There was no usenet
80mya. Hell, there wasn't even fidonet.
Andr�
UC
wrote:
> On 2009-11-20, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:29:00 +0000, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
> >>> Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
> >>> different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there others?
>
> >> Aves.
>
> > Penguins are the best trees.
>
> Penguins are also the best vernacular.
Know whut I mean Vern....?
Ymir
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Hey, I'm fluent in Non-French.
Andr�
UC
> In article
> <uranium-1faa98e7-bf0e-4e45-bfae-8a6796431...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
> m>,
>
> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If we were suddenly thrust back 80 million years...could we survive?
>
> If you mean the people on this group, probably not. There was no usenet
> 80mya. Hell, there wasn't even fidonet.
>
What I mean is, would we be able to breathe the air, eat anything
around at that time? Would we die of infections because our immune
systems would be anachronistic, or not?
John Harshman
I hope you understand that pines are one genus, Pinus, and that there
are many more coniferous trees than that. The word you really want is
"conifer". That would cover pines, fir, cedar, hemlock, redwood, etc.
> "Dicot"? Not familiar
> with word that at all.
That's what makes dictionaries so useful. You can look it up. Palms are
monocots, by the way.
> Although I have heard the term "hardwood" a
> lot, I never knew it meant non-pine trees. I did not know pine was
> softer than maple or beech or whatever. I did not know that "hardwood"
> referred to maple beech etc. I thought it referred to cherry,
> mahogany, etc.
This is yet another use for dictionaries. Look it up and let me know
what you find. The dictionary I just consulted had as its #2 a reference
to true vessels (meaning angiosperm). Now in reality this would cover
palms too, but they probably didn't mean that. They probably should have
disambiguated further by specifically mentioning that they're talking
about dicots. By the way, if we use this sense of the word, balsa is a
hardwood.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
<lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:16:02 -0800 (PST), UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>>Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
>>different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
>>others?
>>
>>MS
>
>If I recall correctly, Gingko may be part of their own group, even
>though they are flat leaved and deciduous.
Gingkos are very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginkgo
I recall reading several years ago that gingkos are very
disease-resistant, another factor contribution to their
extreme longevity as a genus.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:42:28 -0800 (PST), UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
<snip>
>>Are pine trees softer than other types?
>Yes, pinewood is softer than maple or other hardwoods.
You need to rethink that. *Most* pines (and other conifers)
are softer than *most* "hardwoods", but there are
exceptions; these include Southern yellow pine vs. silver
maple.
>I think you are doing a good job of explaining to yourself why
>scientists do not use vernacular terms to try to explain relationships
>among trees.
Maybe it'll take...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
>Of course, I am just shocked by the lack of a single term to describe
>"non-pine" and "non-palm" trees. I just realized what a dearth of
>terms there is for such a common thing!
Why "shocked"? The vernacular is hardly confusing. If I'm
talking to someone and say "evergreen" he almost always
knows what I mean, and any confusion is easily remedied
("No, I meant holly."), and discussions about the "normal"
deciduous trees or palms usually involve the common name,
resulting in no confusion at all. And scientists use
explicit terms.
Free Lunch
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
What it does not refer to is either pines or palms. You would be hard
pressed to find an English word that usefully included the date palm and
the hickory and the maple but excluded the blue spruce.
John Harshman
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:03:46 -0600, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
><lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:42:28 -0800 (PST), UC
>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Are pine trees softer than other types?
>
>>Yes, pinewood is softer than maple or other hardwoods.
>
>You need to rethink that. *Most* pines (and other conifers)
>are softer than *most* "hardwoods", but there are
>exceptions; these include Southern yellow pine vs. silver
>maple.
True enough, I had forgotten about junk trees like box elders and silver
maples when I offered that generalization.
>>I think you are doing a good job of explaining to yourself why
>>scientists do not use vernacular terms to try to explain relationships
>>among trees.
>
>Maybe it'll take...
I'm sometimes an optimist.
John Harshman
diseases that would like us, because diseases evolve to infest
particular hosts. There being no human population, there would be no
human diseases. They do jump hosts from time to time, but that's no
different than the situation today. And of course you couldn't catch
bird flu, because there were no birds then, the word "bird" referring
only to extant species. You might catch avian flu, though.
Free Lunch
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
Agreed, if you don't mind that it includes tulips, thistles, and grasses
with the palms and maples.
Hatunen
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
>different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
>others?
you need to take lessons in googling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
UC
> >Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
> >different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
> >others?
>
> you need to take lessons in googling:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree
>
> --
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
I think the knowledge here is better than that. That's why I asked.
Ernest Major
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:39:46 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote
>in talk.origins:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:03:46 -0600, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
>><lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:42:28 -0800 (PST), UC
>>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Are pine trees softer than other types?
>>
>>>Yes, pinewood is softer than maple or other hardwoods.
>>
>>You need to rethink that. *Most* pines (and other conifers)
>>are softer than *most* "hardwoods", but there are
>>exceptions; these include Southern yellow pine vs. silver
>>maple.
>
>True enough, I had forgotten about junk trees like box elders and silver
>maples when I offered that generalization.
>
different. I'd expect willows and poplars to have pretty soft wood as
well. There might be conifers with hard wood as well - perhaps yew
qualifies.
>
>>>I think you are doing a good job of explaining to yourself why
>>>scientists do not use vernacular terms to try to explain relationships
>>>among trees.
>>
>>Maybe it'll take...
>
>I'm sometimes an optimist.
>
alias Ernest Major
UC
> In message <8q1eg55clsufg6ncijpmdr1de2s5bct...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes
>
> >On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:39:46 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote
> >in talk.origins:
>
> >>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:03:46 -0600, the following appeared
> >>in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
> >><lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>
> >>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:42:28 -0800 (PST), UC
>
> >><snip>
>
> >>>>Are pine trees softer than other types?
>
> >>>Yes, pinewood is softer than maple or other hardwoods.
>
> >>You need to rethink that. *Most* pines (and other conifers)
> >>are softer than *most* "hardwoods", but there are
> >>exceptions; these include Southern yellow pine vs. silver
> >>maple.
>
> >True enough, I had forgotten about junk trees like box elders and silver
> >maples when I offered that generalization.
>
> Balsa has already been mentioned, and _Entelea_ is not that much
> different. I'd expect willows and poplars to have pretty soft wood as
> well. There might be conifers with hard wood as well - perhaps yew
> qualifies.
>
> >>>I think you are doing a good job of explaining to yourself why
> >>>scientists do not use vernacular terms to try to explain relationships
> >>>among trees.
>
> >>Maybe it'll take...
>
> >I'm sometimes an optimist.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Well that's why I didn't make the connection to "hardwood".
So, not all "conifers" are "pines"?
Ernest Major
<uranium-e33b4fe2-bdca-...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
m>, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes
genus Pinus, and might loosely be applied to the family Pinaceae (which
also includes spruces, firs, larches, true cedars, Douglas firs,
hemlocks). The name also gets applied to various other plants such as
the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia), Chile Pine and Norfolk Island Pine
(Araucaria), Huon Pine (Lagarostrobos), umberella pine (Sciadopitys),
screw pine (Pandanus), joint pine (Ephedra) and ground pine (Ajuga
chamaepitys); the last three aren't even conifers.
Other conifers include yews, kauri, cypresses, junipers, yellowwoods
(podocarps) and redwoods.
Vernacular names for trees do not match neatly to taxa - for example in
white oak applies to both Quercus alba (an oak) and Lagunaria patersonia
(a relative of the Hibiscus). Box elder is a maple, and is more closely
related to roses than to elder, which is turn is more closely related to
daisies than to box elder. Mountain ash applies to both species of both
Sorbus (rowans, whitebeams, service trees) and Eucalyptus, neither of
which is closely related to the true ashes (Fraxinus).
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Free Lunch
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in talk.origins:
I don't either, but I'm not sure the answer actually met UC's request. I
thought he was trying to limit it to trees though he did not specify it
in that particular question.
John Harshman
to describe an artificial group minus another artificial group (trees,
except for those trees that aren't angiosperms).
Hatunen
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 20, 4:30 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:16:02 -0800 (PST), UC
>>
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
>> >different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
>> >others?
>>
>> you need to take lessons in googling:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree
>>
>I think the knowledge here is better than that. That's why I asked.
That site looks pretty comprehensive to me.
Aside: There was a book called "Trees of Arizona" put out by a
state agency published several decades ago in which a tree was
definend as a woody trunk, branches, etc., and they included
several cactuses as trees.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
John Wilkins
<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:03:18 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Of course, I am just shocked by the lack of a single term to describe
> >"non-pine" and "non-palm" trees. I just realized what a dearth of
> >terms there is for such a common thing!
>
> Why "shocked"? The vernacular is hardly confusing. If I'm
> talking to someone and say "evergreen" he almost always
> knows what I mean, and any confusion is easily remedied
> ("No, I meant holly."), and discussions about the "normal"
> deciduous trees or palms usually involve the common name,
> resulting in no confusion at all. And scientists use
> explicit terms.
Loathe as I am to get engaged in another round of "words have meanings
so science is mistaken" with UC, allow me to note here that the reason
why we tend not to use privative terms like "non-palm trees" is that
there are as many privative terms as there are things to private. So
our linguistic load would rise enormously.
Also, as Aristotle noted in the Posterior Analytics, privative groups
permit incoherent and inconsistent classifications.
John Wilkins
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I can beat that: I'm fluent in
Non-French
Non-Italian
Non-Hebrew
Non-Chinese
Non-Arabic
Non-Hindi
Non-Indonesian
Non-Swahili
and too many more for modesty to permit me to list.
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > In article <sdsbg592pm3a73bua...@4ax.com>,
> > r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> be. In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
> >> palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
> >> "hardwood" trees.
> >
> > I am not a botonist. Are palm trees flowering plants?
>
> Yes.
>
> > During the "tropical oils" food scare some years back, I read that the
> > plants containing so-called "tropical oils" belonged to one branch of a
> > split that went way, way back in the history of land plants. And I
> > thought palms were definately on the "tropical oil" side of that split.
> > Flowering plants, on the other hand, didn't show up until there were
> > dinosaurs, or so I thought.
>
> I suspect you are talking about monocots vs. dicots. Both are flowering
> plants. Palms are monocots. So are grasses, lilies, and various others.
> Dicots aren't a real group, actually; it's now known that monocots are
> just one branch of the dicots. Surely, though, the Mesozoic would count
> as "way, way back". Wouldn't it?
Way, way back was the development of eucaryotes.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Sapient Fridge
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:42:28 -0800 (PST), UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
<snip>
>>I agree, but of course pines differ in appearance and presumably
>>history from the "other trees" (maples, ash, etc.), which have a
>>family "resemblance". Is there no name for maple, birch, ash, etc.
>>trees, to distinguish them from pines and palms, other than
>>"deciduous"? The vernacular is wanting in a term here, I think...we
>>just have "tree" then species names...then there's "hardwood", which
>>offers little about the structure of the tree or its appearance...
>>
>>Are pine trees softer than other types?
>
>Yes, pinewood is softer than maple or other hardwoods.
Balsa is classified as a hardwood, but is softer than pine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsa
>I think you are doing a good job of explaining to yourself why
>scientists do not use vernacular terms to try to explain relationships
>among trees.
Indeed.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
John Harshman
means. Admit it.
John Harshman
John Wilkins
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
That's not it, I promise. It's something else.
Actually, "privative" turns out to be a very useful word/concept. Think
of it as vernacular paraphyly.
Ymir
<uranium-7d63d590-b0c1-...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.c
om>,
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:18 pm, Ymir <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > In article
> > <uranium-1faa98e7-bf0e-4e45-bfae-8a6796431...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
> > m>,
> >
> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If we were suddenly thrust back 80 million years...could we survive?
> >
> > If you mean the people on this group, probably not. There was no usenet
> > 80mya. Hell, there wasn't even fidonet.
> >
> > Andr�
>
> What I mean is, would we be able to breathe the air,
Probably.
> eat anything
> around at that time?
Probably.
> Would we die of infections because our immune
> systems would be anachronistic,
Probably.
or not?
Probably.
But what would we *do*?
Andr�
John Harshman
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Point of view, but almost all the history of life was confined to
procaryotes.
Ymir
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Brag all you want -- in an (admittedly perverse) way I am still more
impressed by some of our regulars who have demonstrated a lack of
fluency in two or more non-X's.
Andr�
John Harshman
way, way, way, way, way back.
Earle Jones
<uranium-3f4a4b62-8233-...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
> On Nov 20, 9:21 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:39 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:30:10 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >On Nov 19, 6:16 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
> > > >> different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
> > > >> others?
> >
> > > >> MS
> >
> > > >Palm trees.
> >
> > > >Tree ferns
> >
> > > It is well recognized that "tree" is not a phylogenetic designation
> > > but merely indicates any large woody-ish sort of perennial plant.
> >
> > > In times past, there were giant forests of ferns and horsetails, both
> > > of them quite distinct types of plants phylogenetically. I believe
> > > the whisk ferns, another distinct group, also may have grown as trees.
> > > All of these belong to the category of vascular-but-not-seed plants.
> > > In the category of seed plants, there are a number of gymnosperms that
> > > are biologically quite distinct: gingko, cycad, and conifer
> > > (including pines and the "softwood" trees) that all grow as trees. I
> > > don't know of any gnetophytes that grow that way but there might well
> > > be. In the category of flowering plants, there are monocots like
> > > palms and bananas that grow in tree form as well as the well-known
> > > "hardwood" trees.
> >
> > > Please, please PLEASE don't start in about vernacular and linnean!
> >
> > I put "trees" in quote precisely to indicate that I was interested in
> > learning more about what we call trees. I have a limited knowledge of
> > botany, but I do recognize "evergreens" are distinct group from other
> > trees like maples and ash. Palm trees...what are they?
>
> So, what vernacular terms are they?
>
> Evergreens, deciduous, and palms? What else are there?
*
Shoe trees?
earle
*
heekster
I'm sure that there is a "loo" joke in there somewhere.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Sure, we can break the whole universe into {inside the privy} and
{outside the privy}.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Wilkins
<jo...@wilkins.id.au>:
Good point, and one I recall reading several times in your
latest book (_Species_). Good text IMHO, and one I'd
recommend to any layman (like myself) for an overview of the
history of the term.
And I *loved* your final comment in the book. ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>In message <8q1eg55clsufg6nci...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
><lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:39:46 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote
>>in talk.origins:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:03:46 -0600, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by Free Lunch
>>><lu...@nofreelunch.us>:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:42:28 -0800 (PST), UC
>>>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>Are pine trees softer than other types?
>>>
>>>>Yes, pinewood is softer than maple or other hardwoods.
>>>
>>>You need to rethink that. *Most* pines (and other conifers)
>>>are softer than *most* "hardwoods", but there are
>>>exceptions; these include Southern yellow pine vs. silver
>>>maple.
>>
>>True enough, I had forgotten about junk trees like box elders and silver
>>maples when I offered that generalization.
>Balsa has already been mentioned, and _Entelea_ is not that much
>different. I'd expect willows and poplars to have pretty soft wood as
>well. There might be conifers with hard wood as well - perhaps yew
>qualifies.
As I noted above, Southern yellow pine is harder than quite
a few "hardwoods"; it's also denser than many of them.
If you place balsa at one end and lignum vitae (or hornbeam)
at the other, SYP is above the middle.
>>>>I think you are doing a good job of explaining to yourself why
>>>>scientists do not use vernacular terms to try to explain relationships
>>>>among trees.
>>>
>>>Maybe it'll take...
>>
>>I'm sometimes an optimist.
>>
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Wilkins
<jo...@wilkins.id.au>:
<SPLORK!>
Dammit, John...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>In article
><uranium-7d63d590-b0c1-...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.c
>om>,
> UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 20, 3:18 pm, Ymir <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <uranium-1faa98e7-bf0e-4e45-bfae-8a6796431...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
>> > m>,
>> >
>> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > If we were suddenly thrust back 80 million years...could we survive?
>> >
>> > If you mean the people on this group, probably not. There was no usenet
>> > 80mya. Hell, there wasn't even fidonet.
>> >
>> > André
>>
>> What I mean is, would we be able to breathe the air,
>
>Probably.
>
>> eat anything
>> around at that time?
>
>Probably.
>
>> Would we die of infections because our immune
>> systems would be anachronistic,
>
>Probably.
>
>or not?
>
>Probably.
>
>But what would we *do*?
Build "Permian Park"?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
I think the Wayback Machine just blew a rectifier...
John Harshman
The Wayback Machine is only capable of going way back. That's why Mr.
Peabody and Sherman never visited the dinosaurs. For that they would
have needed a Waywayback Machine.
r norman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
It is easier to think of it as non-monophyly
r norman
I have been travelling for the last two days and have not had a chance
to keep timely with UC's return to his classic nonsensical insistence
that his notion of what words mean and how they should be used is the
only way that makes sense.
So, UC, for your edification:
People use descriptive terms for groups of objects very often (almost
always, in fact) in technically incorrect ways, in inconsistent ways,
in confusing ways. There are different categories of plants. Trees,
as opposed to shrubs and herbs, is one such category that applies
easily to some object we observe in this world but applies with
difficulty to others. In particular, "trees" familiar to Europeans
before the great ages of discovery (and when linguistic ideas had
already consolidated) pretty much fit the notion of "tree." But many
plants from Africa and the New World deviate drastically and some
plants rather unfamiliar to Europeans but of Eurasian origin also
don't fit. Still we say "tree" when we mean a particularly large
plant usually with a single main stem. Bamboo and columnar cacti and
boojum and the like don't really fit but are still often called
"trees".
Obviously palm trees differ from other varieties. But don't imagine
that "pine tree" means any conifer, just as you must not imagine that
"palm tree" means any monocot. There are distinctly different kinds
of conifer tree -- spruce and juniper and fir and .... Anybody at all
familiar with trees knows full well that those are NOT pine trees.
There is no common word for coniferous tree except perhaps to refer to
"coniferous tree". There are many conifers that do not have tree
growth form. And the word 'conifer' itself doesn't refer to the
general morphology of the plant but rather to a particular
reproductive structure and there are non conifers that bear cones.
There is no common word for dicot tree except "dicot tree" There is no
common word for "monocot tree" except "monocot tree". Just as "pine
tree" is not the group you think it might be, so "palm tree" is also
not the group because there are many monocots that grow in tree form
besides the palms. Then there are all the other trees that I and
others have already cited -- gingkos, cycads (that maybe look sort of
like palm trees but are totally non-palm), tree ferns, whisk ferns,
and horsetails (some of these oince did grow as tress but no longer
do). So "tree" means whatever the user thinks it might mean and it
might be a reasonable group of objects or it might be a totally
irrational group.
Can we describe subcategories? You don't like 'hardwood' vs
'softwood' because you say those terms refer to the type of wood and
not to the tree-ness of the overall growth pattern. Well, just too
f-ing bad! People use descriptors they find convenient for whatever
purpose they want. And "hardwood' vs 'softwood' referring to trees
means specifically 'dicotyledenous angiosperm' vs 'coniferous
gymnosperm' even though it is very true that many 'hardwoods' have
very soft wood and many 'softwoods' have very hard wood. Those are
the words we use regardless of the strength of the wood.
Then there is 'evergreen' vs. 'deciduous'. You say you don't like
'deciduous' because it is not vernacular! Well it IS used in the
vernacular to mean a tree or shrub of an angiosperm in opposition to
'evergreen' which means a conferous plant. This in total disregard of
the simple fact that many so-called deciduous plants don't drop there
leaves but are ever-green all year long and many so-called evergreens
do drop their needle-like leaves during part of the year and are truly
deciduous. But those are the terms that are used. Iincorrectly and
carelessly, but used all the same.
Then there is "broad leafed' as in broad-leaved weed. That means a
dicot as opposed to a grassy monocot. At least that is how it is
commonly used. Of course it is quite true that many so-called
broad-leaf dicots have very narrow leaves and many monocots have
rather broad leaves.
People use words to communicate (except here on t.o. where people use
words to confuse and exasperate -- but that is another quite valid use
of language). So as long as both the speaker and the listener have
some vague similarity of reference in what meaning a particular word
used at a particular time is intended to convery, then all is well.
This totally independent of whether the word is used "correctly" or
not.
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
It's not generally know, but all life results from a visit by Captain
Peabody to the early Earth, where he dropped his load.
John Harshman
"privative".
John Harshman
> Just as "pine
> tree" is not the group you think it might be, so "palm tree" is also
> not the group because there are many monocots that grow in tree form
> besides the palms.
I didn't know that. Or, rather, I hadn't thought about it before. But
now that you mention it, Joshua trees are monocots, aren't they?
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
screw-pine (Pandanus), cabbage tree (or palm) (Cordyline) are also
monocots. Depending of how far you're willing to stretch the definition
of tree, there's also bananas and plantains (Musa) and the taller bamboo
species.
[I'm tempted to limit the concept of tree to plants with the type of
wood anatomy found in gymnosperms and dicots.]
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<a82e3e84-9a94-40fc...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
troll <trol...@go.com> writes
>The leafs of different trees can also be broad leaf or needles. The
>scales of some conifers can sometimes be broad enough to approach the
>dimensions of relatively broad leafs.
>
There are certainly "broad-leaved" shrubs (e.g. Ulex and Grevillea)
which have needle-like leaves. I don't know of any trees like that, but
I wouldn't be surprised if there are.
--
alias Ernest Major
rmacfarl
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LBqmbvDF...@meden.invalid...
I think the Casuarinacea would qualify:
John Harshman
Australian "pine"?
Ymir
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:13:06 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >In article
> ><uranium-7d63d590-b0c1-...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.c
> >om>,
> > UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 20, 3:18 pm, Ymir <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <uranium-1faa98e7-bf0e-4e45-bfae-8a6796431...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.co
> >> > m>,
> >> >
> >> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > If we were suddenly thrust back 80 million years...could we survive?
> >> >
> >> > If you mean the people on this group, probably not. There was no usenet
> >> > 80mya. Hell, there wasn't even fidonet.
> >> >
> >> > Andr�
> >>
> >> What I mean is, would we be able to breathe the air,
> >
> >Probably.
> >
> >> eat anything
> >> around at that time?
> >
> >Probably.
> >
> >> Would we die of infections because our immune
> >> systems would be anachronistic,
> >
> >Probably.
> >
> >or not?
> >
> >Probably.
> >
> >But what would we *do*?
>
> Build "Permian Park"?
That sounds too dangerous. We'd be outsmarted by all sorts of
resourceful synapsids. Their lysine deficiency wouldn't protect us.
Chaos theory proves that we'd be doomed. I think there was an overly
high-budget documdrama made about something like this once.
Andr�
UC
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:32:31 -0800, Earle Jones
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><uranium-3f4a4b62-8233-4f1b-9d7e-e1376726b...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
> >om>,
I'm just asking, no reason to get upset with me. It seems clear that
there are too few vernacular terms. I am not a botanist and have
hardly any knowledge of "trees". I call (probably incorrectly) any
tree with "needles" a pine.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by troll
<trol...@go.com>:
>On Nov 19, 4:16 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Now don't over-think this, folks....we call plants of at least two
>> different groups "trees" ...pine trees and deciduous...are there
>> others?
>>
>> MS
>
>I will see if this post works.
>
>You are talking apples and oranges.
>
>A tree is a large plant that is generally perennial. It is often
>made of strong materials that enable to grow very tall and
>has a vascular system to enable it to also be very tall.
>
>Evergreen and deciduous trees are two types of trees that
>have to do with the shedding of their leaves in winter. They
>have nothing to do with whether they are conifers or
>angiosperms.
>
>There are such things as deciduous conifers. They are
>called 'larches' and exist in the far north where it is
>so cold in winter and the winters are so long that these
>conifers simply do not have growing needles in winter.
>
>There are also evergreen angiosperms. In the tropics,
>the temperature does not freeze at any time throughout
>the year. Because of this fact, some broad leaf
>angiosperms do not shed leafs at any specific season.
Hollies, which are northern temperate trees, are also
evergreen.
>The leafs of different trees can also be broad leaf or
>needles. The scales of some conifers can sometimes
>be broad enough to approach the dimensions of
>relatively broad leafs.
>
>Some needles might generally be more frost resistant
>than some types of broad leafs.
Since needles are generally the more frost-resistant, I
believe you stated this backward.
Cory Albrecht
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that "trees" is not a
monophyletic group - UC's original post certainly makes it look like he
thinks that. (If he even knows what "monophyletic" means...).
UC
> Ernest Major wrote, on 09-11-22 04:18 AM:
>
>
>
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> writes
Yes, I understand that perfectly. What I was asking was what were the
main groups of trees, and what were their vernacular names.
Ernest Major
<uranium-f4ff5261-ed0b-...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
>, UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes
Apart from the question of what qualifies as a tree, the arborescent
habit has been gained and lost many times in the course of plant
evolution. The question as to what are the main groups of trees requires
defining a criterion for dividing trees into groups, and a criterion for
determining which of those groups qualify as main groups. The question
of what are there vernacular names depends on posing the previous
question well.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Several people have mentioned it, though not using the word itself.
UC
> In message
> <uranium-f4ff5261-ed0b-4eff-a91a-06e0f1206...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
> >, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes
Perhaps from the expert's point of view, but not from the layman's.
When I look around, I see "evergreen" or "pine" trees, and then
maples, ash, birch, etc., that have broad leaves that fall off in
autumn. I am also aware of "palm trees", and have seen them in
California. i was wondering: 1) What other groups of "trees" there
might be; 2) What to call those trees that have broad leaves that fall
off (deciduous).
r norman
You are right to complain that I have no reason to get upset with you.
You did ask a perfectly simple and straightforward question and
deserve a simple and straightforward answer. In my defense, I might
point out that you have already received a large number of good
responses from many individuals but yet you persist in repeating the
same questions.
People use words to describe collections for all sorts of reasons and
the choice of what constitutes a collection (or "kind") depends on
familiarity with the world and utility for the speaker's needs. As
peoples' knowledge of the world changes our ideas of what constitutes
a proper collection or "kind" often changes but sometimes it does not.
The short answer that you have been told many times is that there are
no 'vernacular' words to describe the collections you want to refer
to. The very notion of 'tree' needed severe revision once extremely
odd forms of plant growth were discovered in the New World and the
tropics. Some people call the weird things (like bananas and boojums
and Saguaro cactus) real trees; others defer and use other words or
circumlocutions.
As for "pine tree", it is a specific a reference to a particular
"kind" of tree as "maple tree" or "oak tree". Any ordinary person
with any real familiarity with trees with laugh with derision at your
use of the phrase to describe any coniferous tree like a spruce or a
juniper or an arbor vitae just as any ordinary person with any real
familiarity with trees would at someone who uses the phrase "oak tree"
to describe a magnolia or a cypress. You are not alone, though, in
wrongly calling the Casuarina a "pine". Similarly "palm tree" refers
to a specific "kind" of tree even though people wrongly refer to a
cycad as a Sago "palm". Here, I use "kind" in the sense people talk
about oaks and pines and palms -- to indicate most often genus but
sometimes family. In other contexts, the vernacular "kind" might be
much larger, as in "termite" or even a class, as in "earthworm". many
obscure invertebrates are simply called "worms" althought they are
not, of course, worms at all. And then there are the archaic words
like "wort" for just about any herbaceous plant-like thing or "fish"
for just about anything that swims like jellyfish or cuttlefish or
starfish. Some more modern words are just as obsolete even though
commonly in use by the uneducated: "reptile" or "algae" are examples.
So there are all kinds of trees and all kinds of descriptors to
indicate groupings of plants. And there are no common words to group
these into categories because it doesn't make either botanical sense
of common sense to do so.
Hatunen
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The short answer that you have been told many times is that there are
>no 'vernacular' words to describe the collections you want to refer
>to. The very notion of 'tree' needed severe revision once extremely
>odd forms of plant growth were discovered in the New World and the
>tropics. Some people call the weird things (like bananas and boojums
>and Saguaro cactus) real trees; others defer and use other words or
>circumlocutions.
In these parts large areas of saguaro (or sometimes, if tall
enough, prickly pear or cholla) are called "cactus forests".
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
r norman
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:09:16 -0600, r norman
><r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The short answer that you have been told many times is that there are
>>no 'vernacular' words to describe the collections you want to refer
>>to. The very notion of 'tree' needed severe revision once extremely
>>odd forms of plant growth were discovered in the New World and the
>>tropics. Some people call the weird things (like bananas and boojums
>>and Saguaro cactus) real trees; others defer and use other words or
>>circumlocutions.
>
>In these parts large areas of saguaro (or sometimes, if tall
>enough, prickly pear or cholla) are called "cactus forests".
Of course. I'll be in Tucson myself in another week where I live
until May. I love to wander around in the forests of columnar cacti
found throughout the Sonoran desert. It is just that some people find
the term strange, just as they think of Joshua Trees and Boojum's as
very strange plant forms. If it is bigger than me and has a single
main stem, it is a tree as far as I am concerned.
Hatunen
Joshua trees don't look particulary strange to me, but boojums
sure do. But neither is found in southern Arizona save for the
ones deliberately planted.