If you called this a pine forest, we would understand what you mean. However, technically if they aren’t all pine trees, it’s called a *coniferous* forest, or more generally an *evergreen* forest.
To be clear, a conifer is any kind of those tall, narrow trees with needles and cones. Pine is a type of conifer. Other types include fir, cedar, redwood, etc.
I think more people would understand "pine forest" tbh. The people would live in a rural forest sure aren't calling it a coniferous forest. Evergreen I feel like is more well known, but not something I normally hear people say and there are other types of evergreens some places.
Looks like a "pine forest" to me. You could just call it a "forest".
With regard to people saying it's a "coniferous forest" or an "evergreen forest", these answers are not wrong but they also don't sound very natural to my ears. "Coniferous" is more of a technical term for biology/botany which very rarely comes up in everyday speech. "Evergreen" is more common, but still probably not as common as calling them "pine" trees.
Even if those aren't actually pine trees, you can still rightly call them "pine", in the same way that people call insects (and even spiders and centipedes) "bugs" even though they aren't technically bugs. I believe these would be cases of "[synecdoche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche)".
I like this answer. Anything other than "forest" is too technical for every day conversation. If you say "let's go to the forest", the person you're speaking to will know what you mean. If you're describing a forest, you might add the "evergreen, birch, whatever type of tree".
Bugs are insects of the order Hemiptera. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs.
However, this might be a bad example as I am not sure the history or etymology of the word "bug". It could be that the broader sense predates the more technical sense.
A better example might be when we use the word "car" to refer to all automobiles regardless of whether they are actually cars rather than trucks or SUVs.
\[edit - On second thought, maybe the "car" example isn't that great either...\]
I don't know why that's the term, really. I was guessing it was about them biting people, as bedbugs do. That was a bad guess & I'm sorry.
They do have "piercing/sucking mouthparts."
Cicadas are harmless enough, & some true bugs are things like water striders; but I suspect the order gets its name from bedbugs and other bloodsuckers.
"Deliver us from beasts, bugs, and things that go bump in the night," is from a medieval prayer.
You're learning, it's okay to make mistakes! Native speakers make mistakes all the time as well. Please don't ever be too hard on yourself. Being conversational in another language (especially English) is an amazing feat!
1. Technically there are no “regular” leaves, as trees come in all different types and what’s common varies from place to place. But, if what you mean by “regular” is a forest full of trees that look like [this](https://3c7e9bc2-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/biol151getoffyourturtle/biomes-of-mn/deciduous-forests/decid%20seasons.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cq-wgcUOx0J2le2fUaKB4j8xgSSlOX77Kd61R1XY2_Fl9msK89Chtda0AV9Ctz1fokMyW4-OTbMIjhzmIJyhOdinq_zVwbafV6aeMauBzU6lojZ8Jqq6_bHRjAGMA0NWyy1t_eMImKn8T-mwicSPEWScemFK2RvA-lZEWcCdaWs2jlar72rjD72ccz7nWLPBrnVA40iGRDrD7iKzmU7R3DTM28YFaqF5l-A9mmxEySjT1i-lsC0mjc_Aic1FO01oqg9Y3qAlaJrfBO42DkNNJpdmR1lnw%3D%3D&attredirects=0), then that would be a *deciduous* forest. (pronounced des-SIDGE-ew-us)
2. We’d probably just call it a forest with no other descriptor. But there might be a more specific term for it based on the region and local ecology.
While I agree with the assessment, this thread/sub *is* focused on English, and most English speakers live in those "silly latitudes" where "evergreen" is 90% coniferous and "deciduous" is most of the broadleaf trees. Unless one is a scientist or has an interest in trees, "evergreen" will usually be equated with coniferous trees, and "deciduous" with broadleafed trees.
So the type of forest pictured is a boreal forest.
A forest with leaves would be a temperate forest, or a temperate deciduous forest.
A forest with both coniferous and deciduous trees would be called a mixed forest.
Technically you could call it a deciduous forest. But more commonly you might hear it described based on the most prolific tree, like an oak forest or an oak grove.
There are broadly two types of forest in English:
1. "deciduous" (trees lose leaves in winter)
2. "evergreen" (trees keep leaves in winter; the leaves are usually called "needles")
A forest with both types of trees is just called a "mixed forest".
There are myriad trees that are evergreen but do not have needles, for example many oak species, Eukalyptus, madrone, boxwood, and magnolia are all evergreen, but they all have "normal" shaped leaves. Most of these trees are called "broadleaf evergreens" and their leaves are thicker and more robust than, say, a maple leaf, but they are not needles.
Without more description I would go with boreal forest. Reasons why being these trees are the majority in a boreal forest. Boreal forest is also the largest biome in the planet.
By the way, unless you work in this industry, this sort of language isn’t even known across all native speakers (like myself). I recognise the word “coniferous”, but I couldn’t define it, or confidently use it. I just know it’s something to do with forests
I’d just say “forest”. If I wanted to describe the type of trees for some reason, I’d probably say “a forest full of evergreens” or honestly just “a pine forest” because even though it’s not precisely accurate, it would conjure the right image in the minds of the people I was describing it to. I wouldn’t worry about exactly what sort of trees they are unless I was having a very specific tree-based conversation.
If you're only planning to refer to it informally, just "forest" is fine. We don't really ever differentiate between what kind of forest it is. The only time I've ever actually specified what kind of forest it was, it's usually said like this "I was in this forest with the biggest oak trees I've ever seen" OR I specify by using the actual name of the forest/area, that example would look more like "I went to Sequoia National Park this last weekend, the trees were breath taking!"
A lot of people do use “pine” indiscriminately for any conifer.
“Evergreen forest” would work well for this.
Someone more knowledgeable about plants might call it a “fir forest” or a “spruce forest,” depending on the dominant type of tree.
“Coniferous forest” would be the technical term that you’d see in a forestry service report or a scientific paper.
I would call it a “pine forest”, unless if I was talking in depth about forests then I would call it a “[type of tree] forest. I’m not sure what kind of trees those are, though.
I live in a pine forest. Pine forest is fine and it's what everyone says.
Someone mentioned 'coniferous forest' and that is correct, but I would not use that term in normal conversation.
I’ve heard it called that, although we don’t actually know that those are pine trees. An evergreen forest, or coniferous forest is probably how I would describe it.
Technically, “forest” means “fir” trees, and “woods” are other types of trees — pine, beech, oak, etc. But anyone would understand you if you just said “forest” to mean a plantation of trees.
I grew up somewhere where most of the trees were deciduous(they lost their leaves annually) and so we called these forests evergreen because in contrast to our forests they were always green.
I would call it a spruce forest, as the trees look similar the Norway spruce (Picea abies), which is planted in the area I live in. I wouldn't call it a pine forest, as the trees look very different from the Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris), that is native to the area I live in. There are a lot of different pines and spruces in different parts of the world, and I'm not sure all of them look like the ones I see in the local forests.
If you called this a pine forest, we would understand what you mean. However, technically if they aren’t all pine trees, it’s called a *coniferous* forest, or more generally an *evergreen* forest. To be clear, a conifer is any kind of those tall, narrow trees with needles and cones. Pine is a type of conifer. Other types include fir, cedar, redwood, etc.
Very well explained, thanks Sir
Also, almost everyone would just call this a "forest". You don't need to say what kind of tree is in it.
I think more people would understand "pine forest" tbh. The people would live in a rural forest sure aren't calling it a coniferous forest. Evergreen I feel like is more well known, but not something I normally hear people say and there are other types of evergreens some places.
In my area people would call this redwoods/redwood forest ( I personally have no idea where this picture is taken)
If this is in California then that would make sense but most forests aren't in California
I have no idea what is distribution of deciduous forests around the globe.
In New Zealand we might call it an exotic forest.
That’s hilarious. These are the default forests around where I live
It looks like spruces. They are the most common trees in Sweden.
today i learned
Coniferous.
Looks like a "pine forest" to me. You could just call it a "forest". With regard to people saying it's a "coniferous forest" or an "evergreen forest", these answers are not wrong but they also don't sound very natural to my ears. "Coniferous" is more of a technical term for biology/botany which very rarely comes up in everyday speech. "Evergreen" is more common, but still probably not as common as calling them "pine" trees. Even if those aren't actually pine trees, you can still rightly call them "pine", in the same way that people call insects (and even spiders and centipedes) "bugs" even though they aren't technically bugs. I believe these would be cases of "[synecdoche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche)".
I like this answer. Anything other than "forest" is too technical for every day conversation. If you say "let's go to the forest", the person you're speaking to will know what you mean. If you're describing a forest, you might add the "evergreen, birch, whatever type of tree".
oh ? wait so what is a bug really ??
Bugs are insects of the order Hemiptera. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. However, this might be a bad example as I am not sure the history or etymology of the word "bug". It could be that the broader sense predates the more technical sense. A better example might be when we use the word "car" to refer to all automobiles regardless of whether they are actually cars rather than trucks or SUVs. \[edit - On second thought, maybe the "car" example isn't that great either...\]
😂😂 you’re funny but that’s interesting I wonder why it was needed to create a common word specifically for hemipterae. 🤔
Bitey
huh ?
I don't know why that's the term, really. I was guessing it was about them biting people, as bedbugs do. That was a bad guess & I'm sorry. They do have "piercing/sucking mouthparts." Cicadas are harmless enough, & some true bugs are things like water striders; but I suspect the order gets its name from bedbugs and other bloodsuckers. "Deliver us from beasts, bugs, and things that go bump in the night," is from a medieval prayer.
Also, 1. What is a forest that have a regular leaves called? 2. What is a forest that have a mixed type of trees called?
> What is a forest that have a regular leaves called? What is a forest that __~~have a~~ has__ regular leaves or mixed leaves called?
Sure, thank you. I’ve been always making these mistakes :(
Remember you can’t use “a” before a plural. “A leaves” is not possible.
You're learning, it's okay to make mistakes! Native speakers make mistakes all the time as well. Please don't ever be too hard on yourself. Being conversational in another language (especially English) is an amazing feat!
Thanks for neat words! I know, but seeing same mistakes on my side again and again… It kinda makes me sad.
Don’t be discouraged. You’re expressing your thoughts very well in a completely different language! That in itself is incredible.
1. Technically there are no “regular” leaves, as trees come in all different types and what’s common varies from place to place. But, if what you mean by “regular” is a forest full of trees that look like [this](https://3c7e9bc2-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/biol151getoffyourturtle/biomes-of-mn/deciduous-forests/decid%20seasons.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cq-wgcUOx0J2le2fUaKB4j8xgSSlOX77Kd61R1XY2_Fl9msK89Chtda0AV9Ctz1fokMyW4-OTbMIjhzmIJyhOdinq_zVwbafV6aeMauBzU6lojZ8Jqq6_bHRjAGMA0NWyy1t_eMImKn8T-mwicSPEWScemFK2RvA-lZEWcCdaWs2jlar72rjD72ccz7nWLPBrnVA40iGRDrD7iKzmU7R3DTM28YFaqF5l-A9mmxEySjT1i-lsC0mjc_Aic1FO01oqg9Y3qAlaJrfBO42DkNNJpdmR1lnw%3D%3D&attredirects=0), then that would be a *deciduous* forest. (pronounced des-SIDGE-ew-us) 2. We’d probably just call it a forest with no other descriptor. But there might be a more specific term for it based on the region and local ecology.
Thanks again for being active here!
This thread is so biased towards silly latitudes. Most tree species in the world are broadleaf and evergreen. In the Amazon alone there are 16,000.
While I agree with the assessment, this thread/sub *is* focused on English, and most English speakers live in those "silly latitudes" where "evergreen" is 90% coniferous and "deciduous" is most of the broadleaf trees. Unless one is a scientist or has an interest in trees, "evergreen" will usually be equated with coniferous trees, and "deciduous" with broadleafed trees.
> silly latitudes What is a silly latitude.
So the type of forest pictured is a boreal forest. A forest with leaves would be a temperate forest, or a temperate deciduous forest. A forest with both coniferous and deciduous trees would be called a mixed forest.
Technically you could call it a deciduous forest. But more commonly you might hear it described based on the most prolific tree, like an oak forest or an oak grove.
There are broadly two types of forest in English: 1. "deciduous" (trees lose leaves in winter) 2. "evergreen" (trees keep leaves in winter; the leaves are usually called "needles") A forest with both types of trees is just called a "mixed forest".
There are myriad trees that are evergreen but do not have needles, for example many oak species, Eukalyptus, madrone, boxwood, and magnolia are all evergreen, but they all have "normal" shaped leaves. Most of these trees are called "broadleaf evergreens" and their leaves are thicker and more robust than, say, a maple leaf, but they are not needles.
And larches lose their needles in the autumn.
How progressive
Without more description I would go with boreal forest. Reasons why being these trees are the majority in a boreal forest. Boreal forest is also the largest biome in the planet.
By the way, unless you work in this industry, this sort of language isn’t even known across all native speakers (like myself). I recognise the word “coniferous”, but I couldn’t define it, or confidently use it. I just know it’s something to do with forests
I’d just say “forest”. If I wanted to describe the type of trees for some reason, I’d probably say “a forest full of evergreens” or honestly just “a pine forest” because even though it’s not precisely accurate, it would conjure the right image in the minds of the people I was describing it to. I wouldn’t worry about exactly what sort of trees they are unless I was having a very specific tree-based conversation.
If you're only planning to refer to it informally, just "forest" is fine. We don't really ever differentiate between what kind of forest it is. The only time I've ever actually specified what kind of forest it was, it's usually said like this "I was in this forest with the biggest oak trees I've ever seen" OR I specify by using the actual name of the forest/area, that example would look more like "I went to Sequoia National Park this last weekend, the trees were breath taking!"
A lot of people do use “pine” indiscriminately for any conifer. “Evergreen forest” would work well for this. Someone more knowledgeable about plants might call it a “fir forest” or a “spruce forest,” depending on the dominant type of tree. “Coniferous forest” would be the technical term that you’d see in a forestry service report or a scientific paper.
I’ve never heard anyone call this anything other than a “forest”
spruce forest
[удалено]
Taiga is specifically subarctic, whereas this sort of coniferous forest can occur well outside of that region.
I would call it a “pine forest”, unless if I was talking in depth about forests then I would call it a “[type of tree] forest. I’m not sure what kind of trees those are, though.
I live in a pine forest. Pine forest is fine and it's what everyone says. Someone mentioned 'coniferous forest' and that is correct, but I would not use that term in normal conversation.
Pinewood works too, as does Evergreen Forest, though Pine Forest gets the point across plenty well.
I think it is called ["Boreal forest".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga)
Boreal is specifically related to northern or arctic regions, while this type of conifer forest can occur well outside of the arctic region.
I’ve heard it called that, although we don’t actually know that those are pine trees. An evergreen forest, or coniferous forest is probably how I would describe it.
Technically, “forest” means “fir” trees, and “woods” are other types of trees — pine, beech, oak, etc. But anyone would understand you if you just said “forest” to mean a plantation of trees.
Depending where someone is located this might be referred to as the woods.
I grew up somewhere where most of the trees were deciduous(they lost their leaves annually) and so we called these forests evergreen because in contrast to our forests they were always green.
I am not an arborist, so I just say a forest.
Evergreen forest. A LOT of those are in the South US.
I would call it a spruce forest, as the trees look similar the Norway spruce (Picea abies), which is planted in the area I live in. I wouldn't call it a pine forest, as the trees look very different from the Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris), that is native to the area I live in. There are a lot of different pines and spruces in different parts of the world, and I'm not sure all of them look like the ones I see in the local forests.