Comment on Palms
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 months agoMmmmm, I’d say specialists would not use the broader definitions that are more colloquial. Generally, trees are woody plants with secondary growth and they aren’t monocots.
Comment on Palms
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 months agoMmmmm, I’d say specialists would not use the broader definitions that are more colloquial. Generally, trees are woody plants with secondary growth and they aren’t monocots.
dannoffs@hexbear.net 2 months ago
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=c…
Someone should tell the authors of these hundreds of papers then.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 months ago
…ifas.ufl.edu/…/are-palm-trees-really-trees/
dannoffs@hexbear.net 2 months ago
There’s no way you actually read that.
It’s literally a blog post of one person’s opinion which concludes without a definitive statement, that it’s not settled if they’re trees or not, and then links to a page “for further reading” that categorizes them under trees.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 months ago
I did and I agree with the author. You do not have to agree with us. It’s a form vs function argument.