Perhaps it's a mistake to think of trees as delimited individuals one might take in at a single glance at all. I recalled a wonderfully thoughtful endnote to the article by Stuart Cooke on the poetics of trees from which I quoted already here.
My principal interlocutor for these final paragraphs was a Poinciana (Delonix regia) in orange-red blossom, located by the banks of the Brisbane River at the end of Merthyr Road in New Farm, on Juggerah country. Despite the valuable assistance of the Poinciana, my comments in this section are not meant to refer to a particular tree. While I appreciate phytocriticism’s 
emphasis on individual plants and share Ryan’s related concern regarding ‘the marginalization of individual botanical lives’, I am also wary of how this emphasis might intersect with neoliberal constructions of individuality, and what it might therefore ignore about tree collectives and communal subjectivities, and their places in multispecies kinship networks. Even to talk about a generalised, individual tree ... may be a problematic atomisation of tree being: ‘individual’ trees may be more commonly interconnected through their root systems, so that the forests they compose, ... ‘are superorganisms with inter-connections much like ant colonies’ . In trees’ superorganismic collectivity, entwined by multimodal, chemically mediated forms of communication, it might be most useful to think of forest rather than tree expression.