c




 

 






The introduction states the argument simply and directly. Each point of argument
is encapsulated in 1 sentence. The conclusion is also 1 sentence and explains why
the argument is reached.

In this essay I intend to argue that trees are not green for 3 reasons. Many trees are
yellow not green. Many trees are solely green but they are not always green. Many
trees are green but they are also simultaneously, other colours too. In conclusion trees
are not green because they are either wholly another colour; they are green less of the
time than they are another colour; or they are a mixture of colours aswell, including
green.




Essay structure is added to the introduction; each point of argument is described
and referenced; further questions are asked in the conclusion.

In this essay I intend to argue that trees are not green for 3 reasons. First I will discuss
how many trees are yellow not green. My second point will explain that many trees
are solely green but they are not always green. Thirdly, I will look at how many trees
are green but they are also simultaneously, other colours too.
Many trees are yellow not green. The HoHum tree, found remote parts of
north Canada for example, has ochre leaves and Smith (1986) points out that all trees
are a yellow - not green ± because as a primary colour, yellow is found in all leaf
pigmentation whereas green is a secondary colour and dependent on the presence of
the colour blue.
Meanwhile there are some theorists who argue that trees are solely green
according to leaf pigmentation (Jones 1982, Brown 1948, Carter 1971). However we
still cannot say those trees are green because they are not green all the year round and
in many cases, they are only green for less than half of the calendar year. This is the
argument of White (2003: 11) who states:

³Even trees that are green are not green. They are never green for more than six
months. For the rest of the year, they are another colour.´

This quote leads us on to how trees may well be green but they will also
simultaneously, be other colours too. For example, the leaves of the LaLa tree found
throughout low sandy areas of southern Europe is both green, red and yellow. Wilber
commented as early as 1910 that this trees had leaves the colour of grass and fire,
while Ayckbourn (1978) has famously referred to how trees are never one colour.
In conclusion, in this essay I have argued that trees are not green because they
are either wholly another colour; they are green less of the time than they are another
colour; or they are a mixture of colours aswell, including green. However I have
limited myself to discussion only of leaf colour. If I were to discuss bark colour, I
may well reach another conclusion. So this begs the larger question, how should we
understand what a tree is and what should we take as its main significators?

  
!

The introduction has more context, the points of argument include a defeat of
theorists give evidence against the main argument. The conclusion also has more
contextual discussion.

There are diverse types of trees and all trees have leaves. The leaves of trees have
been the subject of many famous nature poets such as Walt Whitman, John Keats and
John Clare and it is frequently the colour of those leaves that receives so much
attention. But exactly what colour is a leaf? Leaves may not always be what they
appear. In this essay I intend to argue that trees are not green for 3 reasons. First I will
discuss how many trees are yellow not green. My second point will explain that many
trees are solely green but they are not always green. Thirdly, I will look at how many
trees are green but they are also simultaneously, other colours too.
Many trees are yellow not green. The HoHum tree, found remote parts of
north Canada for example, has ochre leaves and Smith (1986) points out that all trees
are a yellow - not green ± because as a primary colour, yellow is found in all leaf
pigmentation whereas green is a secondary colour and dependent on the presence of
the colour blue. However, we also have to consider the work of Piggott (145) who
says that even a primary colour is never 100 percent the colour that is identified by the
naked eye. Absolutes do not occur in nature (Baker 1962). There is a great corpus of
literature discussing this point (Medley 1932, Bryant 1998, McGregor et al 1942) and
their arguments are established on the basis of chromatography. However we can
easily discount this argument. Even though a primary colour such as yellow may not
be 100 percent yellow, it will still always be more than 50% this colour can still
legitimately called ³yellow´.
Meanwhile there are some theorists who argue that trees are solely green
according to leaf pigmentation (Jones 1982, Brown 1948, Carter 1971). However we
still cannot say those trees are green because they are not green all the year round and
in many cases, they are only green for less than half of the calendar year. This is the
argument of White (2003: 11) who states:

³Even trees that are green are not green. They are never green for more than six
months. For the rest of the year, they are another colour.´

One statement seemingly in opposition with White¶s claim is that of Boring (1978:
239):

³White (2003) is mistaken. Trees are always green for more than 6 months because
while leaves may not look ³green´ for any part of the year, their substantial greenness
is simply masked by an upper layer of another colour.´

Boring is saying that trees may well be green even though they don¶t look it, due to an
overlying, colour masking that greenness. But in 90% of those cases, that overlying
colour is so thick, there is still less green than other colours (Silley 1988). White¶s
statement therefore still stands. For more than six months of the year, there is not
actually enough of the colour green in a leaf, to call it ³green´.
White¶s quote leads us on to how trees may well be green but they will also
simultaneously, be other colours too. For example, the leaves of the LaLa tree found
throughout low sandy areas of southern Europe is both green, red and yellow. Wilber
commented as early as 1910 that this trees had leaves the colour of grass and fire,
while Ayckbourn (1978) has famously referred to how trees are never one colour. It
could be argued here, in the vein of Disney (1956) that for some cultures ³green´ is
not necessarily the same colour as we would understand it in Western culture, so
green may not be green at all. For example some Papua New Guinea cultures call
³green´ what under chromatographic analysis would be classified ³orange´. However,
for the purposes of this essay, I am arguing within the context of the Americas and
Europe only, so Disney¶s argument is superfluous.
In conclusion, Whitman, Keats and Clare may have addressed the colour of
trees in their poetry by describing those trees leaves but there are many variables to
consider when expressing the beauty of a tree. In this essay I have argued that trees
are not green because they are either wholly another colour; they are green less of the
time than they are another colour; or they are a mixture of colours aswell, including
green. However, just like the aforementioned poets, I have limited myself to
discussion only of leaf colour. If I were to discuss bark colour, I may well reach
another conclusion. So this begs the larger question, how should we understand what
a tree is and what should we take as its main significators?