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.
fine, then we agree that it’s incorrect to definitively say that a “palm tree” is not a tree.
rigidly defending the boundaries of a biological category that’s not a monophylitic group is an exercise in futility. or maybe in linguistics, because if it’s not monophyletic it’s not “real” in an evolutionary sense then the question is in the cultural realm and somewhat subjective. It’s like the discussions about whether a certain food is a fruit/vegetable/etc.
dannoffs@hexbear.net 3 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 3 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.
Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 3 months ago
fine, then we agree that it’s incorrect to definitively say that a “palm tree” is not a tree.
rigidly defending the boundaries of a biological category that’s not a monophylitic group is an exercise in futility. or maybe in linguistics, because if it’s not monophyletic it’s not “real” in an evolutionary sense then the question is in the cultural realm and somewhat subjective. It’s like the discussions about whether a certain food is a fruit/vegetable/etc.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 months ago
I see it as a paradox. :)