• dannoffs [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

        • fossilesqueOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          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. There is not a “right absolute” answer, it’s about how you approach the question.

          • Abracadaniel [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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 and 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.