Tree semantics
I find it interesting that palm trees aren't technically trees, because they are monocots, more closely related to grass, don't produce true wood, etc. (to be most accurate they are giant grass)
But at the same time, tree is a lifestyle, many trees have convergently evolved, so there's not like a clade for trees, nor is there a clear distinction biologically between shrubs/bushes and trees.
look how messed up this is. Ridiculous, unnecessary
Now, palm trees get excluded because they have this spongy wood that does not have growth rings. Palm trees also have a 'pseudobark' that is made of dried tissue.
on the other hand, they have the tree body plan, and even though they are more closely related to grass than dicots, pine trees aren't even angiosperms and those get to be trees. At least palm trees are in with the flowering plants. And there is a ton of accepted variance in tree woods already.
however, none of this really matters for casual context, because if you're out with friends and go, "errrm, actually, that palm tree isn't technically a real tree" you just sound like a loser
