pcplantdb

["John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net>]

Aloha,

> ...So it seems that treeness does not really tie well with the typical
> plant systematics.

Of course, because "typical plant systematics" are but one of an infinite
number of possible ways of classifying plants, all of which are arbitrary.

The one people are "used to" didn't consider "trees" as a basic
element...so they ended up scattered all over the "system"
classifications.

This is a very important point you are raising.

If we intend to provide anything more useful than what already exists, we
need to keep noticing these sorts of patterns, e.g. that arbitrary
separations (such as botanical plant classifications) may not be very
relevant to the guts of what we are doing.

> So in conclusion the best answer might be that the concept of a tree is
> a really complicated thing it means
>       perennial
>       woody
>       branches higher up
>       inhabits a particular ecological niche (keep leaves high up).

It may be complicated in terms of creating an abstraction.

It's not complicated at all to a human being - point to a plant and ask
"is that a tree?" and most everyone will be able to answer "yes" or "no"
without even consciously thinking about it.



John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
------------------------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Whole Systems Design Services
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net