Wordsmith.org
Posted By: dalehileman perennial v evergreen - 03/12/07 07:35 PM
How do you distinguish the one from the other

In other words, what's the term for a perennial that perishes on top but comes back from the root--thanks all
Posted By: Faldage Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/12/07 11:08 PM
Originally Posted By: dalehileman
what's the term for a perennial that perishes on top but comes back from the root--thanks all


Perennial. Evergreen is distinguished from deciduous.
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/13/07 09:52 AM
Dale, I'm a gardener.

Perennials are plants, flowers, that grow back after winter. Some go for a few years , others go endlessly , like the phlox, the irisses and many more.

(a perennial always has a period where it perishes above ground level and renews from it's roots after a winter or resting period.)

Evergreens are shrubs and trees that stay green all year round like the fir trees and the kitchen laurel or bay leaf tree or box and taxis hedges.They drop and renew needles or leaves all year through, when they are healthy.

perennials
1. (botany) lasting three seasons or more; "the common buttercup is a popular perennial plant".
2. Lasting an indefinitely long time; suggesting self-renewal; "perennial happiness".
3. Recurring again and again; "perennial efforts to stipulate the requirements".

evergreens
1. (of plants trees and shrubs) bearing foliage throughout the year.
Posted By: Hydra Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/13/07 12:32 PM
Evergreen and deciduous make an unlikely couple. Is there a more technical term for evergreen?
Posted By: Elizabeth Creith Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/13/07 02:20 PM
Originally Posted By: Hydra
Evergreen and deciduous make an unlikely couple. Is there a more technical term for evergreen?


Why do you find that unlikely? It describes the difference between them very nicely. Here in the north many evergreens are also conifers, but the tamarack turns yellow and sheds its needles every year. We make jokes about "deciduous evergreens".
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/13/07 02:26 PM
A more technical term is : always green

The larch or larix drops its needles every autumn as well.
Posted By: of troy Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/13/07 03:29 PM
and there are broad leaf, non cone bearing trees (like the holly!) that are evergreen

as well as needle-leafed/cone bearing trees like pines--that are often what is thought of when the term 'evergreen' is invoked.

there shrubs that keep leaves all year long but i tend to think of perennial being paired with annual (the first a plant that dies back, (loses its green/flowering top) but regrows season after season, vs a plant that dies completely with the first frost.

(and then there are the semi perennials.. like snap dragons. plants that act like perennials in places with mild winters/or if covered with an insulating layer of snow, but die completely if there is a hard winter.)
Posted By: dalehileman Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/13/07 03:35 PM
Bran: (a perennial always has a period where it perishes above ground level and renews from it's roots...

***Thank you for your illuminating input. However, you should delete the "always," for evergreens are sometimes included among the perennials

***...while meantime I've learned the term I was looking for apparently is "herbaceous perennial." But by chance is there a single word for this kind of herb
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/13/07 04:05 PM
Originally Posted By: Hydra
Evergreen and deciduous make an unlikely couple. Is there a more technical term for evergreen?


O.K. The gardener's technical term for evergreen is sempervirens.

Bur there is nothing wrong with evergreen
Posted By: dalehileman Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/14/07 06:11 PM
A nod to Bran and Helen, as

In common usage the term perennial generally describes herbaceous perennials--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_plant
Posted By: tsuwm Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/14/07 06:56 PM
Originally Posted By: dalehileman
A nod to Bran and Helen, as

In common usage the term perennial generally describes herbaceous perennials--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_plant


>Is there a more technical term for evergreen?

you reject sempervirent then?
Posted By: Alex Williams Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/14/07 06:57 PM
Here's a handy mnemonic: perennials are like the Greek myth of Persephone, who spent winters in the underworld and summers on earth.
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/14/07 08:39 PM
Perennials and evergreens(sempervirens) are two different things.
Dales's first post was not in clear, good concordance with his topic title.
Perennials are herbaceous,though some show shrubbery aspects.

Evergreens (sempervirens) are always shrubbs or trees.
His question was why perennials died for a period and then grew back again from the roots.
His question was not about evergreens at all.

It was Hydra who wanted to know a more technical term for evergreens.
Loose from Dale's first post's question.

Alex Williams ,that is a nice piece of mythology!

Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/16/07 07:25 AM
Dale. This is just nice to have a quick look at. A little step outside.

Evergreens:

http://images.nl.ask.com/pictures?q=sempervirens&qsrc=31&o=312&l=dir

And perennials:

http://images.nl.ask.com/pictures?q=pere...lang&page=2
-----------------
Posted By: dalehileman Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/16/07 03:37 PM
Bran: Thank you for those links
Posted By: themilum Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/16/07 10:55 PM
Dang it, Dale, you'll never be a partydoll on the Net if you don't stop criticizing the good people who give well thought answers to your contorted questions. So please think out my input before you opine your signature improvement. Here, I'm not trying to give you a fishy answer; I trying to teach you to fish.

___________________________

The term-lengths of natural death in most plants and animals is a crafty strategy for living, so senescence is inbuilt by evolution to increase the odds of survival in a ever changing world. Some plants, the annuals, grow from seed, flower, then seed and die, within a single year. In the wilds the annuals populate bare soils, like those created by forest fires and tree falls. They grow best in direct sunlight and don't compete well with taller, faster growing, plants whose leaves soon block the sun, so they simply die and re-invest all the important plant minerals back into their seeds which are smartly designed to sprout in a varible sequence - that is - they spread the time of germination over several years in order to hopefully capture favorable conditions for a new cycle of short term growth.

All annuals, as well as the biennials, which grow leafy in the frist year and flower, seed, and die in the second year, are termed monocarpics -- they bloom and seed only once in their lifespan and then they die.

A few perennials are monocarpics. One such is a curious species of bamboo which grows chastely for almost exactly one hundred years and then explodes sexually with pink blossoms and dies. Strangely, cuttings from this bamboo that have been transplanted in the warm zones of other continents all wither and die in unison. Why one hundred years? No one knows...I think.

But most perennials are polycarpic. Polycarpic perennials flower and bear fruit many times during their life span. The strategy of many small perennials is to survive the winter underground without a superstructure, thereby conserving vauable nutrients in blubs and root systems without having to rebuild a new understructure in order to grow upward rapidly and quickly, above the greedy leaves of their rivals, towards the life-giving rays of the sun come Spring.

Deciduous trees ape this strategy of storage of mineral assets from the green leaves into internal structures for the duration of winter so as to make them available for flowering and seed production in the spring.

Some odd facts...

A single mushroom plant Armillaria bulbosa has been discovered that extends beneath more than 30 acres of top soil in northern Michigan. (I have named him "Fred") Fred was spawned by a single spore many thousands of years ago.

Another individual of Armillaria A. ostoyae) in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon (I call her " Bruce") was found to be a subterranean mycelial network connecting erect, above-ground mushrooms that covered 2,000 acres and weighed more that a pod of Blue whales. Bruce, they think, is 5,000 years old.

Now here's a trick that you can try at home: cut a branch from a 4,000 year old bristlecone pine. Stick it in the ground and watch it grow. Question: How old is your bristlecone pine?

Speaking of "old" there is a stand of Buffalo Grass in Montana that dates from the end of the Pleistocene, about 12,000 years ago. Each blade is genetically identical. It is but one individual. I've named him "Jake" after my dog.

Some plants and animals don't die. When a single cell creature divides into two, which is the creature?
The answer is, of course, both. Some bacteria is a billion years old.

So in conclusion, individuals don't die; species do. Which is alive, the plant or the seed? Death is an invention of Evolution , death helps the species to continue in the changing conditions that always occur with time. And like plants, individul humans don't die, they live as seeds in their progeny; whether their progeny be flesh and blood, or the acts they have done, or in the words that they have spoken.

And that's the truth and I'm sticking to it.








Posted By: of troy Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/17/07 03:12 AM
Milum--i knew that about bamboo--well except the hundred year part.. i thought that different bamboo's had different 'cycles' (like cicada's!) and that some bamboo live X years, all flower and die and other species live Y years.. i didn't know they all lived apx (or is it exactly?) 100 years.

but thanks for the term monocarpic. that is term i didn't know but i did know that there are many plants that are semi-perennial but realize now, they are actually monocarpic. (i think dustymiller/miller'sdaughter (common name) is one.)

this ornimental is grown for its folliage, and will live several years, but once it flowers, it dies. frequently, that is bi-annually, but if kept pruned (and dry-natural drought) it won't flower.

some of my favorite flowers were plants like daylilies and spiderwort.. both had 1 day flowers.
but months of flowers--each plant had abundant flowers, and both keep producing flower buds for a long time, even if each flower only last a day.
Posted By: themilum Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/17/07 04:23 AM
Originally Posted By: of troy
Milum--i knew that about bamboo--well except the hundred year part.. i thought that different bamboo's had different 'cycles' (like cicada's!) and that some bamboo live X years, all flower and die and other species live Y years.. i didn't know they all lived apx (or is it exactly?) 100 years.

but thanks for the term monocarpic. that is term i didn't know but i did know that there are many plants that are semi-perennial but realize now, they are actually monocarpic. (i think dustymiller/miller'sdaughter (common name) is one.)

this ornimental is grown for its folliage, and will live several years, but once it flowers, it dies. frequently, that is bi-annually, but if kept pruned (and dry-natural drought) it won't flower.

some of my favorite flowers were plants like daylilies and spiderwort.. both had 1 day flowers.
but months of flowers--each plant had abundant flowers, and both keep producing flower buds for a long time, even if each flower only last a day.


Right, Helen, different bamboos have different cycles, but the point is -- cycles have function. Think in terms of cause and effect; the only instigation to the examined life of a thinking individual is in his or her complete understanding of the meaning of why he (or she) is here.
Posted By: dalehileman Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/17/07 06:23 PM
the: Thank you for that but how was my post contorted and whom did I criticize
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 09:24 AM
Under what category would you place humankind if compared to the
plant world, Themilum? Skipping the annuals (tragic), perennials?
Monocarpics if they only produce one child? (certainly not evergreens )

I try to follow the jump you made from the function of cycles to
the complete understanding of an individual of what his / her existance means.Difficult, even after examining the words.

Quote: Numberless are the world's wonders , but none more wonderful than Man.

(who tries so hard to recreate his own being )
-------------------------------------------------
Posted By: themilum Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 02:43 PM
Quote:
the: Thank you for that but how was my post contorted and whom did I criticize? - dalehileman

I see, Dale, and what, exactly, is the difference between a duck?

Quote:
I try to follow the jump you made from the function of cycles to the complete understanding of an individual of what his / her existance means. Difficult, even after examining the words. - Branshea


No wonder you didn't see a connection, quick thinking Branshea, I wasn't finished. I'm having computer problems and coulld only post in small increments before being shut down. Now I write on MicrosoftWord and then copy and paste. So please look back to my "edit" above in a few minutes and you will see the relationship between a duck. (that part about a duck is a little joke!)
Posted By: Curuinor Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 03:02 PM
What kind of virus lapses between shutdowns and lets you fix the damn thing?
Posted By: themilum Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 04:12 PM
Why do you ask, Curuinor?
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 06:09 PM
themilum

Now this is a very very nice natural history post (+ philosophical extension, previous page) , worth all the blank space you left after the last line. Impressed!
So I'll print. Sometimes I think too quick, but I always read slow. I will read the printed version carefully.

[ Now here's a trick that you can try at home: cut a branch from a 4,000 year old bristlecone pine. (ship one over please ) Stick it in the ground and watch it grow. Question: How old is your bristlecone pine? ]

Hmm? 4000 - plus the time after planting ? If I'm wrong , please correction.

Thanks, the Milum!
Posted By: olly Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 09:19 PM
Is the branch from the top?
Posted By: themilum Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 09:26 PM
Ah Branshea, you jump to conclusions.
My summation was semantical not philosophical.
Clearly when we speak of annuals, biennials, perennials, ephemerals, etc. we speak in terms of the sencescence of the individual organism; death by forest fire would kill the lot, regardless of any lifespan expected, but a carefully plotted death by sencescence can have only one purpose - and from the standpoint of evolution, a most noble one - and that is the survival of the kind.

Hey! Did you note when I wrote "bacteria is an individual" I used the singular "is"? I thought that clever and cute and I want a prize.
Posted By: themilum Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 10:35 PM
Originally Posted By: olly
Is the branch from the top?


Ah yes, ollie, good point.

But here's another...

All the cells of the human body are replaced by new cells in cycles of seven years.

How old are you, olly?
Posted By: olly Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/18/07 10:48 PM
Five years and 10 months. This includes the Nine months gestation in mummys tummy. I'm in my Sixth regeneration.
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/19/07 06:33 PM
Originally Posted By: themilum
sencescence of the individual organism; death by forest fire would kill the lot, regardless of any lifespan expected.

Hey! Did you note when I wrote "bacteria is an individual" I used the singular "is"? I thought that clever and cute and I want a prize.


It's high time something went way over my head and it did!
I cannot find the word sencescence in any dictionary and I wouldn't even know how to pronounce it. It goes weird when I try.

I get some of what you mean (I guess), but 'semantical summations' makes me think it would be best I stayed on after class for extra explanations.

Yes I saw the Bacteria and the prize is : That I understood! Saw this post only monday evening. Get no mails for this one.




Posted By: tsuwm Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/19/07 06:42 PM
I think the word meant here must be senescence.

-ken (growing old) speckle

Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/19/07 07:03 PM
Senescence.
. The organic process of growing older and showing the effects of increasing age.

What a diff'rence a C makes... wasn't that a song? .
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/19/07 07:07 PM
Half an hour and three slpping posts later. Thanks tsum, funny!
Posted By: themilum Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/19/07 10:51 PM
Originally Posted By: BranShea
Half an hour and three slpping posts later. Thanks tsum, funny!


What a difference a "W" makes
if you are a nitpicking tsuwm
.

Damn, gang, can't we rise above our nits?
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/20/07 06:09 AM
Right, right Themilum

With the W in tsWuWm it has no consequences (I may hope), but that little unimportant s had me going through all my dictionary possibilities. On a rare occasion it makes a difference.That piece of text was difficult to me, also for the other two words.

I have read the long post and was happy with all the information. For instance I know that annuals demand sunny spots, but now I understand why. Wish I could see those mushroom areas. I often gather the edibles here in autumn,. Most loved :
Boletus edulis.

And Milo dear, it was late in the evening for me, I just wanted to understand. My post slipped three times and I typoed away. And then sleep.
Posted By: TEd Remington Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/20/07 11:41 AM
We're just gonna keep you in the dark about the mushrooms, Bran.
Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/20/07 12:03 PM
and remember that TEd is a fun guy.
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/20/07 12:26 PM
I don't go for 'fun' mushrooms anyway. And the poisoness, often prettier ones are safe with me.
Yes, I got the inevitable pun.
Posted By: Buffalo Shrdlu Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/20/07 12:29 PM
> poisoness

yes, she is a nasty one.
Posted By: BranShea Re: perennial v evergreen - 03/20/07 12:33 PM
Allright! it's getting better.... Poisonous. How dumb of me!
NOUS. it should be NOUS! Unforgivable. I failed the poison test! Now what?
Posted By: Jackie Re: fun guy - 03/20/07 01:49 PM
GRR-OO--AA--NNNNNN!
Posted By: Zed Re: fun guy - 03/23/07 11:34 PM
next is the poisonality test
Posted By: AnthonyG TAXIS - origin - 06/08/10 11:43 PM
The Latest wordsmith posting was for TAXIS. The source is said to be from “From Greek taxis (arrangement, order), from tassein (to arrange)”. Many years ago I remember seeing a TV program about the succession of various aristocratic families in Europe. One was about the family “Thurn und Taxis”. The Wikipedia reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurn_und_Taxis. The program explained the postal service the Thurn und Taxis family started. Because of their courier system, the picking up of people – not just mail – became known as a TAXI.

So the uses of the word TAXIS when not plural has an entirely different meaning that the singular TAXI.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Taxis - origin - 06/09/10 02:25 AM
So the uses of the word TAXIS when not plural has an entirely different meaning that the singular TAXI.

There are two different words, with different etymologies, that you have combined. The Greek taxis 'arrangment, order' and the German family name, which in turn is from an Italian aristocratic family Tasso, which means 'badger'. The -s in the Greek word is not a plural ending. It is a nominative singular one. The -s in the family name is anybody's guess as it was not there in the Italian original. The etymology is mentioned in the Wikipedia article you've linked to also, but i have read it in other sources, and it is a reputable one.
Posted By: BranShea Re: Taxis - origin - 06/09/10 06:56 AM
Interesting posts. It shows from the wiki article that the change to the plural ending was already made in Italy: "
Quote:
Ruggiano de Tassis founded a postal service in Italy. And later in Innsbruck, on 11 December 1489, Jeannetto de Tassis was appointed Chief Master of Postal Services. The family held its exclusive position for centuries."
Tasso became de Tassis (Ruggiano de Tassis founded a postal service in Italy.)

Torquato Tasso Tasso was a famous member of the Tassi, maybe distant, as he origins from the heel of the boot.

(Gee what's happening? The link I made created a new wiki page automatically... uh) weird, weird..
This is the link I meant: link

Welcome AnthonyG.
Posted By: Faldage Re: Taxis - origin - 06/09/10 10:29 AM
Final S is not a plural ending in Italian.
[/nitpick]
Posted By: BranShea Re: Taxis - origin - 06/09/10 03:24 PM
Oop-S. I wasn't occupied with singualar or plural. I was busy about where the Tasso -o changed to Tassi(s) -i. But a good nitspick is never a waste. ;-)
Posted By: BranShea Re: Taxis - origin - 06/09/10 10:40 PM
But, is there a computer expert one of you who could/would explain why the link in my upper post 'Tasso' created that false wikipage when I edited 'Tasso' to 'Link'. That's a very lame wiki page.
Posted By: zmjezhd Re: Taxis - origin - 06/09/10 11:44 PM
a computer expert one of you who could/would explain why the link in my upper post 'Tasso' created that false wikipage when I edited 'Tasso' to 'Link'.

You created a Wiki page on the Dutch version of Wikipedia. It's the nature of Wiki that if you link to a wiki page that does not exist, and then click on that link that it creates the page in question. I'm sure they'll delete when they see what you've done.

The text you typed in as the text article name was: "Link was a famous member of the Tassi, maybe distant, as he origins from the heel of the boot."
Posted By: BranShea Re: Taxis - origin - 06/10/10 08:26 AM
laugh Maybe I'll keep it as first line of the book I'll never write.
Posted By: Jackie Re: Taxis - origin - 06/12/10 03:27 AM
laugh
© Wordsmith.org