Rob Wallace
if the statement, "Palms are grasses" was included as an answer on one of the exams in my Plant Systematics course, I would still need to mark it wrong. Completely wrong! (....and no partial credit for, "well, palms are commelinoid monocots, so it's close enough...!" ....sorry!)

Palms are not grasses, regardless of how "relatively related" they are to other monocots, magnoliids, Eudicots, paleoherbs, Amborella, or any gymnosperms. Involving a 'habit' criterion for "tree" also isn't relevant to the argument of relatedness or classification - whether the organisms in the group are predominantly trees, shrubs, lianas/vines, herbs, etc. does not influence the conclusion that palms are not grasses, from any perspective. It probably does help to confuse the issue, and I agree that this may be a common misperception - one that we're trying to change.

Whether they are 'commonly' considered grasses or not, really isn't my point - which is to provide clarification that palms can not, and should not [ever] be correctly called "a grass", even in the most informal settings. It goes against every fabric of my being (and instincts as a professor) to allow major inaccuracies to continue when people have the capability and such easy access to correct information! People deserve to get reliable facts when they're interested in the subject and probably should know about the materials they are working with as woodturners - that's the kind of information I'm hoping to provide! Putting my money where my mouth is - my two demonstrations at the AAW Symposium this coming June will be on how to get started in identifying (and not just recognizing) wood!

Thanks also for the comments and the confirmation that others find plant systematics and classification interesting!

(and BTW - 73, DE WA0RW)

Rob Wallace