One word ....plastics...no, wait, not that word...semantics, that’s the word.

tj

Since the most commonly accepted definition of a 'tree' is "a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground", that eliminates any groundcover type conifer (junipers, spreading yews, any prostrate forms of other species) and countless low growing, shrubby types that can produce multiple, low branching trunks or stems. Conifers can come in any size, shape or growth habit - all they share is the ability to reproduce from seed bearing cones

And it is hard to call anything that grows an inch or so a year a tree :-)

I agree with tsugajunkie about it being a lot to do with semantics ... What differentiates a tree from a shrub? I'd describe either as a woody perennial ... shrub is usually shorter, but that can be achieved by pruning/hacking (what's a Yew? Tree or shrub ... mine is pruned to a large bush shape ...), and number of stems isn't really a defining feature, since I wouldn't say that being multi-stemmed makes my Serviceberry less a tree, and multi-stemmed white pines are definitely trees. Junipers grow in many shapes/habits, some of which are pretty horizontal and 'shrubby' others of which are tall and 'treeish' ... I'm pretty sure those 'berries' are technically cones.

Probably an elevated branch crown perched on one or a few trunks is the most consistently applied determining combination. Hence the habit of calling top grafted (or staked and pruned), often more or less lollipop shaped bushes - including cane stemmed types like roses - "trees". And with bonsai being defined as "dwarfed potted trees".

Ken,Ken,Ken.....I can't believe that after all these years, you are still insisting that all conifers are trees. Lol!

What is your definition of a "tree"?

Microbiota decussata isn't a tree by anyone's definition.

And neither is Juniperus horizontalis.....or various other groundcover juniper species. Nor is Taxus 'Emerald Spreader'. Or Sequoia sempervirens 'Kelly's Prostrate.

Conifers are woody plants. Some of them are trees, some would commonly be called shrubs or groundcovers.

no scientific definition exists to separate trees and shrubs

Well, actually, the white cedar grows very, very slowly. I can see one that's verified to have taken 155 years to have grown 4 inches...and is definitely a tree.

Bristlecone pines are also quite slow-growers (and most definitely trees), and any other arid tree would be a contender as well.

Growth rates are not a part of the definition of "tree" and can't be held against a poor plant. Please don't denigrate the plant for being a slow grower, it's an insult to those of us who are comparatively short. :-)

Mini and dwarf conifers are defined solely by their rate of growth. And rarely ever fit the accepted definition of a tree or even display a tree-like form. So yes, growth rate - in addition to habit - can be one of the factors that defines a conifer as a tree. Or not.

There is no definitive botanical definition of a tree, shrub or groundcover. They are only descriptive explanations of a plant form or growth habit. And because examples of conifers can be found that consistently meet each of these descriptive explanations, it is erroneous to assume that ALL conifers are trees. If you want more substantive data, try looking at the information provided by the American Conifer Society. Several of the previous responses are from ACS members.

Do not presume any of my above comments are directed at you personally, although I do know how you crave that attention. I am just attempting - like several others - to answer Ken's question and clarify some apparent misunderstandings or invalid word usage. As tj stated, it is a matter of semantics.

Sorry bad joke, apparently.

What?

All conifers are trees, even the itsy-bitsy ones. Besides, shrubs don't exist - only bushes.

"are all conifers trees????" - nope, as discussed in detail numerous times, this is self-evidently not the case.

"shrubs don't exist" - boy, someone needs to get out more! LOL

There are people at whom you can talk all day, but it's like punching a wave.

Shrub, bush ... semantics ... I'm pretty sure they do exist, though.

I can't help myself .... "Well, actually, the white cedar grows very, very slowly. I can see one that's verified to have taken 155 years to have grown 4 inches...and is definitely a tree "

Are you talking about Thuja occidentals..Juniperus virginia , or what ?

none of those grow very , very slowly . unless you are talking about dwarf cultivars

and one that is 155 yrs. old and 4" is a bonsai plant artificially kept that size

I had to comment ,Ron

White cedar would usually be Thuja occidentalis, though I think there are some other confiers sharing the name; Juniperus virginiana would generally carry a common name of Eastern Red Cedar, at least around here. Ican't speak to the Thuja's growth rate, as we don't have one, but our Eastern Red Cedar is pretty slow growing. It's about 30-35' tall. It got its top knocked off (struck by lightning), and it took about 30 years to grow back the 3-4 feet it had lost. Not quite 4" in 155 years, but 48" in 30ish years isn't fast growing ... and it is not a dwarf. The tree company thinks ours grows as expected. I wonder how old that tree was for that 155 year period, though, and it's conditions, both could effect growth.

Seriously, because this keeps popping up in my feed, As a scientist, I want to know how this discussion of "Conifer: Tree or Other Stuff, Too" advances anybody?

It doesn't really :-) But it may clear up some confusion that is promulgated by some that insist that ALL conifers are trees when they clearly are not. Several excellent examples of non tree-like conifers have been provided as evidence.

Per the USFS, "Though no scientific definition exists to separate trees and shrubs, a useful definition for atree is a woody plant having one erect perennial stem (trunk) at least three inches in diameter at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground, a definitely formed crown of foliage, and a mature height of at least 13 feet."

From Wikipedia: "Although "tree" is a term of common parlance, there is no universally recognised precise definition of what a tree is, either botanically or in common language. In its broadest sense, a tree is any plant with the general form of an elongated stem, or trunk, which supports the photosynthetic leaves or branches at some distance above the ground. Trees are also typically defined by height, with smaller plants from 0.5 to 10 m (1.6 to 32.8 ft) being called shrubs, so the minimum height of a tree is only loosely defined."

Well, you guys can have your bushes. All of my conifers are trees. :-)

Juniperus communis (species): 1-1/2 ft high and 4 ft. across. Been in the ground a few years. It has no inclination whatsoever to grow upward like a 'Tree'. And I've seen them 4 feet high and twelve feet across in the wild. If I sold this to someone as a tree, I'd probably be arrested. lol. :-)

eta: picture disappeared first post.

Bill - or committed!

You could always sell it me as a tree...

Does the question have to do with there being a scientific difference or if its confusing to the general public?

Calling a conifer a tree is confusing to your casual individual learning more about plants.

It would be more helpful to simply state a conifer is simply a coniferous trees vs deciduous tree.

To me that would be more helpful with educating those around us.

Coniferous and deciduous aren't mutual exclusive ... Larches are both, for example.

Evergreen coniferous or deciduous coniferous would cover that.

But can juniper be call coniferous when it has a berry instead of a cone? Or is there a scientific definition that covers that?

It is not really a berry although it does look like one :-) It just has unsually fleshy scales that merge to form a berry-like appearace but it is a true cone.

Pretty sure the distinction is broadleaf or coniferous... Although, that's still kind or mixing apples and oranges... And I am both sick and bored now, because the power is out, so I'll play, too, I guess, because there's no other game in town...

Even if we assume that a species meets some morphologigal definition of the term "tree^ based on girth and height, still I don't think we can use the definition: there will be prostrate individuals that do not cease to be trees because of the defect (or defects) that causes (or cause) a tree to be prostrate. Further, a prostrate individual might not pass down the defect (or defects) that causes (or cause) a tree to be prostrate. Moreover even if we allow that the prostrate individual is not a tree because it is prostrate, would we subsequntly allow that non-trees can have tree progeny? If you really want to definie a tree you must take this into consideration or define tree-dom in some other way that includes this phenomenon. Perhaps, a morphological definition is doomed to failure or mind-boggling complexity.

Many edits. This is hard on my phone.

A conifer is a plant that bears cones. This includes arils, for example, which are fleshy but do not arise from a floral ovary, which is what a fruit is (they may be fused leaves, origin is not certain). Juniper 'berries', as noted above, are cones with fused scales. That is it, botanically, in terms of describing a conifer.

However, observation will tell you that all conifers are woody plants, as are all maples, magnolias, etc. Maples and magnolias can also be found in shrub form, but you have now left the world of botany and entered the world of horticulture, which, as an applied science, takes its scientific cues from botany and then applies this science to the art of growing plants in gardens or other cultural practices. Tree vs shrub vs groundcover vs vine are all horticultural distinctions and custom will sometimes alter their usage. In the world of horticulture, it is pretty clear that not all conifers are trees. And if I were to call my arborist and ask him to prune my juniper hedge he would tell me to call a gardener.

Phssst! I knew there'd be a simple explanation. :-)

But I get it.

'Pretty sure the distinction is broadleaf or coniferous'

no no, not when talking about Larch, which is not considered broad leaf at all. It's a deciduous conifer because it looses it's needles/leaves each season.

Bill, I was referring back to whaas_5s'd comment. Yes. Larches are deciduous and conifers, which makes whaas's distinction...imperfect :)

'Broadleaved' is how we describe nonconiferous trees, shrubs, etc. to distinguish them from the needle-like or scale-like foliage of conifers. And like conifers, they can be both evergreen or deciduous. Magnolia grandiflora would be an example of a broadleaved evergreen tree.

Broadleaf's analog is indeed needle-bearing. There are evergreen plants that are not broadleaved, such as Acacia, some Callistemon, some Banksia, etc. I have had many visitors think that one of my Banksias is a conifer.

You open up a whole 'nother world for us Sara. Australian wild flowers? That's great! :-)

I was following this thread just to find out the answer to kens question. And to me, 'shrub' turns out to be more of a descriptive term than it is a scientific one. So in botany all conifers share basic similarities that could classify them all as trees, while in horticulture, a person that wants a low growing woody plant they can prune, certainly doesn't want a 'Tree' planted.

I'm no expert but I seem to learn something every time these things are discussed.

NO , ken knew there was no answer

ha , ron

I know, I know! ;-)

" ken knew there was no answer"

Did he? His very first statement to this post - i have said such forever ... - would seem to indicate otherwise and he continues to comment on other posts with same 'all conifers are trees' refrain.

Narrow, even very narrow pointed leaves are not the same as conifer needles or flattened scales and regardless of appearance or how broad they really are, are still classified as 'broadleaved' plants.

I have a collection of whipcord hebes that unless you were familiar with the plant or happened to see them in bloom, you would swear up and down that they were conifers! But they are still considered broadleaved evergreens.

Again, this is not a scientific definition but a horticultural convention.

To me it doesn't matter the intent on how a discussion starts, if knowledgeable persons respond with interesting and accurate information, common folk like me can always glean something valuable from the conversation. Maybe that's just me.

But I dont' think that anyone would describe Acacia riceana as broadleaved! :-)

So, I had never heard of it... How are phyllodes classified? (My area of science was not botany.)

Phyllodes are modified stems or petioles. Phyllocladus, a conifer genus from New Zealand (Podocarpaceae) is an example of a conifer with phyllodes.