SOURCE: Redit.com Is the coconut palm a tree? self.botany submitted 16 days ago by NihiloEx
In Goa, [the] coconut tree will no longer be a tree! Reason, if it were to remain a tree, each time one has to cut the coconut tree, they needed permission from the forest department. That it would no longer be a tree was formalized at a state cabinet meeting chaired by chief minister Laxmikant Parsekar on Friday. The logic: "The definition of a tree is a plant with main trunk and branches but a coconut palm does not fit into this criteria as it has no branches," former deputy conservator of forest and then tree officer, Subhas Henriques said. Source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/Coconut-tree-loses-tree-status-in-Goa/articleshow/50239580.cms I'm curious to know if these guys are simply exploiting a loophole or if they are technically correct. Wikipedia has not been terribly helpful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut 11 comments [–]SilverHoudini 6 points 16 days ago Technically, they are correct in that it's not a tree. Trees are primarily dicots (there's exceptions to every rule), where the Coconut is a monocot. Dicots are plants that, among other differences, have two cotolydons in their seed. Cotolydons are the first "leaves" that emerge. Common dicots are most trees and shrubs, as well as beans, peas, tomatoes, etc. Monocots only have a single "leaf" in their seeds. Common monocots include grasses and palms. Corn, wheat, barley, etc are considered a specialty grass. Palms are also monocots. Some people consider palms trees because they do in fact lignify (ie produce lignin, which is basically wood). But I personally don't use that as a good indicator because plenty of plants lignify and aren't considered trees. [–]NihiloEx[S] 2 points 16 days ago Thanks! That's very helpful :) Is the lignin in the palm's trunk? Or is it elsewhere? [–]SilverHoudini 5 points 16 days ago Well, the short answer is yes. The long answer is that palms don't have trunks any more than corn or grass does. It's most commonly called a shaft insert crude joke here or stalk. [–]porcelainpluto 2 points 15 days ago I disagree. The large number of trees represented by gymnosperms and magnoliids are too significant to brush them off as exceptions. If you look at a tulip poplar, it's clearly a tree, but not a dicot. When botanists talk about trees, they are talking about the growth habit, i.e. shrub, herb, tree, vine, liana. It's only a starting point for classification so it's broad, and just begins to give us an idea of the particular plant's evolutionary strategy. Just to double check myself though, I yanked one of my text books off the shelf and this is what they had to say: Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach (Judd et al.) defines a tree as "...a woody plant with a single main trunk." Just out of curiosity, I looked up Goa's Forestry department, and in their charter they refer to coconuts are tree cover that was specifically within their realm of concern. So I think Mr. Henriques is not being consistent with his department's mission. https://www.goa.gov.in/pdf/ForestDeptCharter.pdf [–]SilverHoudini 2 points 15 days ago I'm not sure where you got the information that tulip poplars are not dicots, but they are. They are also Angiosperms. Primitive Angiosperms, but they are considered Angiosperms. Gymnosperms vs Angiosperms is a very different argument than dicots vs monocots. Dicot and monocot refers to the cotolydons. Gymnosperm and Angiosperm refers to the type of reproduction (flower/cone and seed/fruit). [–]budsport 2 points 15 days ago I think they meant Basal Angiosperms and Magnoliids (inc. Liriodendron) - two cotyledons but from before Monocot/Eudicot separation, as oppose to the Eudicots. It is kinda strange to state trees generally are dicots given the conifers. [–]SilverHoudini 1 point 15 days ago Oh that's true. I hadn't thought of it that way. I was more focusing on the Angiosperm side of the plant kingdom. But you are correct, pines are monocots. [–]porcelainpluto 1 point 15 days ago By dicot, I'm casually referring to Eudicot. Dicot hasn't been considered a good classification since 1998 because it's paraphyletic. It's not even a clade any more. But since dicot was in use for such a long time, it's common for people to use Eudicot and Dicot interchangeably. I didn't realize you were using it in the old sense. Just check out the current APG III system. [–]rottie_Boston_daddy 4 points 15 days ago As an active horticulturalist this post has inspired me to re-read a book i have, botany for gardeners. Thank you. [–]budsport 3 points 15 days ago* A coconut palm 'trunk' is really a bunch of stacked leaf sheaths, similar to a tree-fern. Monocots can't grow 'outwards'; they don't have a ring of dividing tissue in the stem (a lateral meristem, known as secondary growth) like conifers and broad-leaved trees have, so they don't form wood or bark in the stricter sense. The reasoning by the tree officer is pretty strange, but it might be an attempt at non-technical speak? Trees are also usually differentiated from shrubs (that also form wood and bark) by only having the one one trunk, and being a decent size, but it's not really a botanical difference. [–]DJKaraX 2 points 15 days ago The USDA considers coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) to be a tree. Not all palms qualify as trees, however, and there are missing growth forms within their database. Other things that many people consider to be trees colloquially, such as the banana (Musa spp.), for various reasons. https://www.reddit.com/r/botany/comments/3yoiak/is_the_coconut_palm_a_tree/