&gt; A 10 cm trunk diameter pine is not a tree, is a... (let&#x27;s invent a new word for this) a &#x27;treeddler&#x27;, a baby.<p>The claim is that the number of trees was dramatically underestimated in previous studies. Which definition of tree was used doesn&#x27;t make a difference as long as the same definition was used in the previous studies. Unfortunatly this is not made explicit in the article, anyone knows?