There’s no such thing as a tree.
And as a QI fan, I feel compelled to add there’s no such thing as a fish
A local park ranger I know likes to remark that our state tree is a grass. (I’m in Florida.)
But I’d say that’s also inaccurate. IMO, grasses are in the family Poaceae, and palms are in the family Arecaceae. I guess one could remark that our state tree is a commelinid…but I don’t think tourists would get as much of a kick out of that.
This is a reminder that there is no universally accepted botanical definition of tree. It is also a reminder that usage supersedes definition, so pointing out that coconut palm trees aren’t “trees” makes you both annoying and wrong.
The definition of tree exists within the context of all that came before it? 🌴
Mmmmm, I’d say specialists would not use the broader definitions that are more colloquial in nature. Language depends on the user and their purpose/intent. Generally, trees are woody plants with secondary growth and they aren’t monocots. It’s not a hard boundary, but really depends on context.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=coconut+tree
Someone should tell the authors of these hundreds of papers then.
You do realize the qualifiers you edited in are exactly my point and directly contradict your post, right?
birds are dinosaurs
According to OP’s definition:
Woody ✅
Secondary growth (feathers) ✅
Not a monocot ✅
it looks like a tree and quacks like a tree though.
I disagree.
