If I remember correctly, wood consists mainly of cellulose, lignin, and hemi-cellulose. I don’t know about bamboo, but I guess it’s some kind of woody material.
Conifers aren’t trees by this definition. It seems to completely ignore gymnosperms and even misclassified a couple as dicots like sequoias and junipers.
We need to stop looking for a scientifically coherent category for a tree and ,like fish, embrace the true, intuitive, childlike definition of it as just a form, a trunk with leaves at the top.
Palms, like corn, are really tall grass.
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2011/11/06/yes-technically-palms-are-a-big-grass/
How many social credit points do I lose if I refer to bamboo products as “wood” outside of botany nerd circles?
If I remember correctly, wood consists mainly of cellulose, lignin, and hemi-cellulose. I don’t know about bamboo, but I guess it’s some kind of woody material.
It’s the lack of lignin (bamboo uses silica as a strengthener) that sets it apart.
But bamboo is a grass, anyways.
Never doubted bamboo not being a grass. But I didn’t know about the silica thing - that’s really cool!! Thank you for telling this!
I’d say about 69.
Nice.
Conifers aren’t trees by this definition. It seems to completely ignore gymnosperms and even misclassified a couple as dicots like sequoias and junipers.
We need to stop looking for a scientifically coherent category for a tree and ,like fish, embrace the true, intuitive, childlike definition of it as just a form, a trunk with leaves at the top.
“Trees” have secondary growth while “palms” have primary growth. At least that is what I have been told in dendrology lectures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_growth
true enough, that doesn’t exclude them from being trees though.