4 ms·
Why would this be surprising when the definition of tree is so: > First, what is a tree? It’s a big long-lived self-supporting plant with leaves and wood. I h
by Blikkentrekker 5y ago
Why would this be surprising when the definition of tree is so:
> First, what is a tree? It’s a big long-lived self-supporting plant with leaves and wood.
I have some vines that are clearly capable of wood formation and sometimes seem to do so at places for reasons I can't understand.
“tree” is clearly a horizontal classification; it is as surprising as as that not all animals that can fly have common ancestors that can.
> You know birds? Imagine if actually there were amphibian birds and mammal birds and insect birds flying all around, and they all looked pretty much the same – feathers, beaks, little claw feet, the lot. You had to be a real bird expert to be able to tell an insect bird from a mammal bird. Also, most people don’t know that there isn’t just one kind of “bird”. That’s what’s going on with trees.
I do not find trees looking similar at all.
- BariumBlue 5y ago> I do not find trees looking similar at all. When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. A street could be lined with "trees", or a "tree" could fall on someone's car. We categorize trees together because they tend to occupy the same enough overall role and profile. Now if there was a "baobob tree" forest, or a "palm tree" fell on a car, those are distinct to merit specification.
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago> When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. A street could be lined with "trees", or a "tree" could fall on someone's car. We categorize trees together because they tend to occupy the same enough overall role and profile. That sounds like something that could very much be different in different languages.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> When folks say "forest", like "I'm going to go hiking in the forest", they usually don't specify what species or genus of tree. well, no, because there aren’t usually multiple forests that could be meant that would be disambiguated to a single forest (warranting the definite article) by genus of trees, there is either one candidate (requiring no qualification) or multiple but needing some other qualification (like specific name of the forest or direction from the current location.)
- intuitionist 5y agoI disagree. Within walking distance of my suburban (Eastern US) home, there’s a patch of woods that’s mostly oaks and maples, a larger patch that’s oak-hickory, and a large park that’s primarily beech-maple. Out West, you could walk among redwoods, or bishop pine, or coast live oak or tanoak.
- swiley 5y agoI'm pretty sure I've heard people talk about the kinds of trees in forests like that before. I've certainly heard people mention the kinds of trees when talking about small stands of trees (ex: "this stand of pines over here.")
- codegladiator 5y ago> I do not find trees looking similar at all. What trees are you talking about ? or you mean in general ?
- Blikkentrekker 5y agoIn general. In particular, many trees grow from a central strem that is nearly perfectly vertical, and many have a more organic growth pattern. I see no reason to assume these have common ancestors that were trees any more than crabs and jellyfish.
- JoBrad 5y agoI think you should read the article in a bit more depth, including the Twitter thread linked at the bottom. Some examples where your description doesn’t hold up so well - palm trees - bamboo - fringe tree (Chionanthus virginicus) - Hydrangea paniculata - sunflowers - crape myrtles can have so many variations that it’s crazy
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoI once cut down a banana tree, with a breadknife. It's not very much like e.g. an oak tree. More like a scaled-up celery.
- samatman 5y agoBamboo is only considered a tree by people who don't live around any, and don't know any better. It is pretty obviously an enormous grass. Woody? Yes. Tree? No.
- robbrown451 5y agoI agree bamboo doesn't really meet the definition of tree, but many/most people will argue that bamboo (the material) it isn't wood. I disagree with that... it is woody enough to meet my definition, and the non-contiguousness of trees supports that.
- GavinMcG 5y agoDo you call certain tall woody growths something else, then? The birds bit is an analogy. It's not about looking identical, it's about looks (tall woody thing) and shared name (tree) not corresponding to phylogenetics.