inkcube

yep. i have seen in my work with Passiflora many knowledgeble people refer to the vines as trees, as well rose bushes, lantanas, and even poinsettias - there is a very prominent poinsettia researcher who always uses the would tree in his talks. tree used to be define as a perennial woody plant with bark but with technology changing the view is changing, a tree fern is a tree but does not produce bark, plus there are annuals that produce wood but in the past have been excluded from being called tree; mums produce wood as do poinsettias and there is an annual passionflower that does. and then there are those herbaceous perennials that produce wood in their roots, corm or rhizomes but not in their trunk and branches, like some peony species.

some of the old guard scientists still stick to the original definition (i have met some that don't acknowledge tree ferns as trees) but as they fade and the new younger guys/gals take over the definition is evolving.

i guess the use of tree does not offend me since i see it bantered around by the undergrads i teach, by the bananeros i work with on the farms, horticulturists, and even some of the profs i've worked with.