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/
