In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:

Most importantly, there is no taxonomic division
or classification of hardwoods and softwoods.

Not correct.

Those terms are primarily commercial, logging, and
building trades terms based on the hardness of the
wood.

That is simply false. Longleaf pine, for example, is considerably harder than
yellow poplar; however, the former is classified as a softwood by the lumber
industry, and the latter as a hardwood.

The lumber industry distinction between hardwood and softwood is based
*loosely* on the fact that most hardwood trees are harder than most softwood
trees -- but, as noted above, that is not always the case.


To further complicate, sources try to
simplify the definition by equating hardwood and
softwoods to some botanical classification. But,
they don't fit any botanical classification very
well and that is the source of the confusion.

The confusion is entirely on your part, sir. "Hardwood" and "softwood" are
exactly synonymous with "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm" respectively. If you
disagree, it's up to you to provide counterexamples.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.