Trees are usually defined to be something very different from cycads and palms. Today if these were growing, they wouldn't be called trees, and their cluster not called forests.
And second, similarly to how 'there's no such thing as a fish', it's been postulated that there's no such thing as a tree. Many different life-forms that we call trees, have no known common ancestor.
Make of that what you will.
<https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/>
This was discussed on HN a few years ago:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621646>
I think it's fair to argue that the palm forests noted in TFA filled a similar niche to that of current tree-like forests. All taxonomical groupings are ultimately grounded in practical organisational utility for humans.
"World's earliest fossilised forest discovered."
Which is the actual title, more accurately describes the claim, and is far less sensationalized.
None??
Stinging Nettle and Strawberries are related - their common ancestor was something like a tree. It's all pretty confused.
More accurately: the common ancestor of modern 'trees' is often not a tree at all. Like, fruitflies and humans have an ancestor but it's neither fly nor human.