Your comment suggesting that language is an unconscious creation tells me that you do indeed understand my use of the term "clade" in that context.

For me, "clade" in an historical-linguistic contexts means a branch in a language tree. That's why I asked.

[W]hat cognizant lifeform would think that all trees are alike just because they are all called trees? And as we know, all self described "language experts" are not experts in language.

Now, I have the distinct feeling (and perhaps this is because I am currently sick battling some kind of cold/flu), that my leg is being pulled.

I did not intend to mean or suggest that all treesd are alike because speakers of English call them "trees". I meant that languages tend to display arbitrainess and non-arbitrariness. In my example, in English, the singular and the plural forms of the word for "tree" ( "tree"/"trees" ) are related. The word "tree" in both words being the same. I can imagine an no-too-likely language where the singular and plural forms for "tree" might not be related: e.g., skhor for 'tree' and yantaq for 'trees'.
_________________________
Ceci n'est pas un seing.