You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?

"Tree" isn't a biological definition. It's a descriptive term for "a tall plant with at least one rigid central trunk." Which means that anything that looks like a tree is probably a tree, regardless of species.

I am a tree
- Ayy, welcome to the tree club!
- We welcome you to tree-hood, my fellow arbor
- Do you get pollinated by birds and bees?

There's no such thing as a tree.

And as a QI fan, I feel compelled to add there's no such thing as a fish

No such thing as a tree? So you mean all those binary trees I've been inverting have been a lie? My whole world is shattered.
Indeed, it simply is not a phylogenetic categorization but a physio-ecological one. Tree, like shrub, liana, herbaceous, woody/non-woody are all terms solely used to place plants into functional groups based on how they grow. None of these has to do with their taxonomy.
So the question is, what is a tree and is having secondary growth necessary to be one? Because monocots, like palms are, don't have secondary growth, they use some workarounds. But why should that matter in the definition of a tree? I don't know. So yeah, a coconut palm should be considered a tree. But it hasn't got to do with phylogenetics (like explained in the article you linked).
Also, millennia ago there have been vast forests of lycopods!! Just imagine huge trees that are actually spikemosses. So why shouldn't a palm not be a tree?
- my definition of a tree is basically "a plant consisting of a single pillar-like robust trunk".
  most plants can be trees, especially ones that generally grow as bushes, if they are prodded into doing so by pruning and whatever other pressures, and there are some plants that seem to flip a coin to decide whether they grow into bushes or trees.
Of plants native to the Canary Islands, wood independently evolved at least 38 times!
You forgot about the myth of vegetables.
Except that yes there is. It's just not a scientific term. Same with fish.
https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/duvalco/2024/01/23/are-palm-trees-really-trees/
- A local park ranger I know likes to remark that our state tree is a grass. (I'm in Florida.)
  But I'd say that's also inaccurate. IMO, grasses are in the family Poaceae, and palms are in the family Arecaceae. I guess one could remark that our state tree is a commelinid...but I don't think tourists would get as much of a kick out of that.
- Typical trees belong to a group of plants called dicots
  Whaaaat? Swiftly ignoring all gymnosperms? The temperate zones are full of trees that aren't dicots, or even angiosperms! Focusing on some biological traits that aren't crucial to the definition of a tree sounds like the author already likes their neat categories and wants to retroactively justify them...
Halt! I'm here to check the expiry date of your facts!
Neat read, thanks

There's no widely-accepted scientific definition of a tree.

#PeopleCorrectingPeopleIncorrectly

This is a reminder that there is no universally accepted botanical definition of tree. It is also a reminder that usage supersedes definition, so pointing out that coconut palm trees aren't "trees" makes you both annoying and wrong.

The definition of tree exists within the context of all that came before it? 🌴
- Only in the context of biology and evolution, which the right doesn't understand.
Mmmmm, I'd say specialists would not use the broader definitions that are more colloquial in nature. Language depends on the user and their purpose/intent. Generally, trees are woody plants with secondary growth and they aren't monocots. It's not a hard boundary, but really depends on context.
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=coconut+tree
  Someone should tell the authors of these hundreds of papers then.
  You do realize the qualifiers you edited in are exactly my point and directly contradict your post, right?
- Oak trees are more closely related to palm trees than they are to pine trees. It would be pretty arbitrary to exclude monocots but still include magnolids and gymnosperms.
  Even from a purely structural perspective, they're all tall and have wood and leaves. Palm trees and banana trees don't have woody branches, but joshua trees do. I guess there's a difference that no monocot tree has heartwood, but you'll still need a chainsaw to saw through the trunk of a palm tree.

Wait, what?

Palms, like corn, are really tall grass.
https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2011/11/06/yes-technically-palms-are-a-big-grass/
- Conifers aren't trees by this definition. It seems to completely ignore gymnosperms and even misclassified a couple as dicots like sequoias and junipers.
  We need to stop looking for a scientifically coherent category for a tree and ,like fish, embrace the true, intuitive, childlike definition of it as just a form, a trunk with leaves at the top.
- How many social credit points do I lose if I refer to bamboo products as "wood" outside of botany nerd circles?
- "Trees" have secondary growth while "palms" have primary growth. At least that is what I have been told in dendrology lectures.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_growth
- true enough, that doesn't exclude them from being trees though.

From the coco palm family!

🎵 Ya ya ya ya ya 🎵

it looks like a tree and quacks like a tree though.

Ironically, in this case, that literally means it's a tree

Trees are the plant version of crabs.

Okay, and raspberries aren't technically berries at all, but aggregate fruits. In other words, so the fuck what? When you say 'coconut tree', everyone knows what plant you're referring to.

It's probably going to be political since it's wrong.

The coconut tree (Cocos nucifera) is a member of the palm tree family (Arecaceae) and the only living species of the genus Cocos. The term "coconut" (or the archaic "cocoanut") can refer to the whole coconut palm, the seed, or the fruit, which botanically is a drupe, not a nut. They are ubiquitous in coastal tropical regions and are a cultural icon of the tropics.