Classifying palm "trees"

[MJSanDiego]

Check out that various categories of the classification of palms. Interesting?

[Mishaq]

I find this categorisation of palm trees as grasses stupid.

 

Yes they are monocots but that doesnt mean they are not trees.

 

Conifers like pines and cedars still get tree status and are not even angiosperms!

[Harry’s Palms]

Someone can call them whatever they like but it is fun tell someone they aren’t technically trees. The reaction varies . The South Carolina State tree ain’t a tree! Harry😳

[SeanK]

32 minutes ago, Harry’s Palms said:

Someone can call them whatever they like but it is fun tell someone they aren’t technically trees. The reaction varies . The South Carolina State tree ain’t a tree! Harry😳

Pretty Ironic

[Harry’s Palms]

1 hour ago, SeanK said:

Pretty Ironic

Sort of like an Alanis Morrisett song. “Like a free ride when you’ve already paid”. 

[aabell]

A lot of common misconceptions on this topic - unlike "tree", the word "grass" has an actual clear scientific definition: a member of the Poaceae family. Palms are not grass.

As for whether or not monocots can be trees, I've never seen a convincing reason why not. A tree is a rather arbitrary and non-botanical term for a plant with a tall woody stem, somewhat larger than a shrub. Palms fit this definition along with quite a few other large monocots - Yucca, Dracaena, Aloe, Pandanus, etc. To say that none of them are trees because their wood doesn't have rings is pedantry. 

Besides, the "evolutionary classification" argument is complete nonsense (I'm assuming your screenshot is something AI generated so of course it's nonsense), palms are more closely related to oaks than either are to pine trees. "Tree" is a growth habit that has evolved separately in countless different plant families, not a monophyletic group of bark-having plants.

I honestly think this myth must have originally come from someone in the lumber industry many years ago. Just because you can't make a 2x4 out of it doesn't mean it's not a tree. 

[PalmsandLiszt]

8 hours ago, Harry’s Palms said:

Someone can call them whatever they like but it is fun tell someone they aren’t technically trees. The reaction varies

I enjoy telling people that strawberries are not berries. Nor are raspberries or blackberries or mulberries. Avocados are berries, however. As are pumpkins and bananas.
But still I find that hoi polloi will brazenly continue maintaining that strawberries are nevertheless berries and palm trees are indeed trees, the poor benighted creatures!

[SeanK]

1 hour ago, PalmsandLiszt said:

I enjoy telling people that strawberries are not berries. Nor are raspberries or blackberries or mulberries. Avocados are berries, however. As are pumpkins and bananas.
But still I find that hoi polloi will brazenly continue maintaining that strawberries are nevertheless berries and palm trees are indeed trees, the poor benighted creatures!

 

[PalmsInBaltimore]

I personally don't mind that taxonimists do not consider palms to be true trees. Obviously common words like "tree" and "grass" have been around far longer than our current scientific classification of plants and animals. Just like how in pre-modern times all whales, dolphins, and porposes were considered to be fishes. It astounds me, but there are people who still don't know cetaceans are not fish.

Also thousands of palm species and not all of them are arborescent. What percentage of palms are palm trees vs palm shrubs?

Definitely agree that the Google answer calling palms a "type of grass" is wrong. They are more "similar to grasses, bamboos, and bananas" as the first bullet point says.

Palm seedlings do look just like grass IMHO. But again, I don't mind that taxonimists have different categories than gardeners do. That's going to happen and it happens a lot with other plants

[aabell]

1 hour ago, PalmsInBaltimore said:

I personally don't mind that taxonimists do not consider palms to be true trees. Obviously common words like "tree" and "grass" have been around far longer than our current scientific classification of plants and animals. Just like how in pre-modern times all whales, dolphins, and porposes were considered to be fishes. It astounds me, but there are people who still don't know cetaceans are not fish.

Also thousands of palm species and not all of them are arborescent. What percentage of palms are palm trees vs palm shrubs?

Definitely agree that the Google answer calling palms a "type of grass" is wrong. They are more "similar to grasses, bamboos, and bananas" as the first bullet point says.

Palm seedlings do look just like grass IMHO. But again, I don't mind that taxonimists have different categories than gardeners do. That's going to happen and it happens a lot with other plants

I'm not a taxonomist but as far as I know taxonomists don't really have an opinion on the subject. As you said some palms are tall trees, and some are clumping or stemless shrubs, even within the same genus. Taxonomists are concerned with finding these actual relationships between plants, not the superficial characteristics such as size or shape, which lead to inaccurate common names like "sago palm" and "australian pine".