Aight biologist rant incoming:
There is no such thing as a tree; when trying to come up with a definition for tree, one comes across many problems.
One of these problems is that what we conventionally call trees, don't share a common ancestor that was also a tree. For example in the *Angiosperm* (flowering plants) family, "tree form" has evolved multiple times independently from non-tree ancestors. Because of this, for example an oak tree is closer related to a cucumber than to an apple tree. But those plants are all way closer related to eachother than to a pine tree. (And a palm tree is way closer related to oaks, apple trees and cucumbers than it is to a pine tree)
So grouping trees on phylogeny is in my opinion not the way to go. You'd either *exclude* a whole lot of obvious trees from being trees, or you'd *include* a whole lot of non-trees in being trees.
But maybe, you could instead decide tree means "tall woody plant". But that creates other problems. A lot of bushes are tall and woody, and a lot of plants are tall but not woody, and some *trees* are short and woody. In my opinion a palm is woody and tall enough to be called a tree. Your definition would have to be real in depth, and still you'd include some plants you'd rather not call tree, and you'd exclude some plants you *would* rather call a tree.
So it is impossible to make a good definition for "tree" without being either too inclusive, too exclusive, or a hypocrite. Or you could just do what is in my opinion easiest: if it looks like a tree, it is a tree.
/rant
I agree with what you mean. "Tree" is just a word we use to describe the world as we experience it and nature doesn't fit into perfect categories. It is similar to when people talk about different "species" of homo-sapiens that were able to breed with our ancestors. Part of the definition of speciation (spelling?) is that they are unable to produce fertile offspring.
I was just making a lame joke, but I appreciate your thoughts.
Sadly, palms lack secondary growth and are actually ... grass. But the verdict is still out on that, at least here in floridaman-land.
That being said, I appreciate whole wheat on palms.
Technically that's not a tree, mods remove it! /s
Aight biologist rant incoming: There is no such thing as a tree; when trying to come up with a definition for tree, one comes across many problems. One of these problems is that what we conventionally call trees, don't share a common ancestor that was also a tree. For example in the *Angiosperm* (flowering plants) family, "tree form" has evolved multiple times independently from non-tree ancestors. Because of this, for example an oak tree is closer related to a cucumber than to an apple tree. But those plants are all way closer related to eachother than to a pine tree. (And a palm tree is way closer related to oaks, apple trees and cucumbers than it is to a pine tree) So grouping trees on phylogeny is in my opinion not the way to go. You'd either *exclude* a whole lot of obvious trees from being trees, or you'd *include* a whole lot of non-trees in being trees. But maybe, you could instead decide tree means "tall woody plant". But that creates other problems. A lot of bushes are tall and woody, and a lot of plants are tall but not woody, and some *trees* are short and woody. In my opinion a palm is woody and tall enough to be called a tree. Your definition would have to be real in depth, and still you'd include some plants you'd rather not call tree, and you'd exclude some plants you *would* rather call a tree. So it is impossible to make a good definition for "tree" without being either too inclusive, too exclusive, or a hypocrite. Or you could just do what is in my opinion easiest: if it looks like a tree, it is a tree. /rant
I agree with what you mean. "Tree" is just a word we use to describe the world as we experience it and nature doesn't fit into perfect categories. It is similar to when people talk about different "species" of homo-sapiens that were able to breed with our ancestors. Part of the definition of speciation (spelling?) is that they are unable to produce fertile offspring. I was just making a lame joke, but I appreciate your thoughts.
Wait a palm isn't a tree?
Sadly, palms lack secondary growth and are actually ... grass. But the verdict is still out on that, at least here in floridaman-land. That being said, I appreciate whole wheat on palms.
WAIT PALM TREES ARE GRASS? THATS SO COOL!!!
They aren't grass, just closely related to it
So can I mow my trees?
[I mean.. it's possible](https://youtu.be/8nWwHmIliXE?t=169). I don't recommend it - best to just staple bread to them.
Herbbbbbssssss!!!!!
It appears that this subreddit has been no official ruling about what counts as a tree. We need an addendum to the Acceptable Bread List. Mods!
Too wholesome to remove
Whistles ffffffwwwww look at that beauty
Truly exotic.
Whats that plant growing on the side of it?
Not a tree!!!!
What is your definition of tree
Idk but palms definitely are classified as herbs
Need to read subreddit names before opening posts. I expected crop of wheat in someone's hand.
Classic!
Y’all are insane lmao I just wanted a bread recipe bruh
wait doesn't this violate rule #22?
Looks like a tree to me. Very nice camera angle. Well done.