Abstract
In plant morphology, most structures of vascular plants can easily be assigned to pre-established organ categories. However, there are also intermediate structures that do not fit those categories associated with a classical approach to morphology. To integrate the diversity of forms in the same general framework, we constructed a theoretical morphospace based on a variety of modalities where it is possible to calculate the morphological distance between plant organs. This paper gives emphasis on shoot, leaf, leaflet and trichomes while ignoring the root. This will allow us to test the hypothesis that classical morphology (typology) and dynamic morphology occupy the same theoretical morphospace and the relationship between the two approaches remains a question of weighting of criteria. Our approach considers the shoot (i.e. leafy stem) as the basic morphological structural unit. A theoretical data table consisting of as many lines as there are possible combinations between different modalities of characters of a typical shoot was generated. By applying a principal components analysis (PCA) to these data it is possible to define a theoretical morphospace of shoots. Typical morphological elements (shoots, leaves, trichomes) and atypical structures (phylloclades, cladodes) including particular cases representing ‘exotic’ structures such as the epiphyllous appendages of Begonia and ‘water shoot’ and ‘leaf’ of aquatic Utricularia were placed in the morphospace. The more an organ differs from a typical shoot, the further away it will be from the barycentre of shoots. By giving a higher weight to variables used in classical typology, the different organ categories appear to be separate, as expected. If we do not make any particular arbitrary choice in terms of character weighting, as it is the case in the context of dynamic morphology, the clear separation between organs is replaced by a continuum. Contrary to typical structures, “intermediate” structures are only compatible with a dynamic morphology approach whether they are placed in the morphospace based on a ponderation compatible with typology or dynamic morphology. The difference in points of view between typology and continuum leads to a particular mode of weighting. By using an equal weighting of characters, contradictions due to the ponderation of characters are avoided, and the morphological concepts of continuum’ and ‘typology’ appear as sub-classes of ‘process’ or ‘dynamic morphology’.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anthony M, Sattler R (1990) Pathological ramification of leaves and the pyramid model of plant construction. Acta Biotheoretica 38:165–170
Arber A (1950) The natural philosophy of plant form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
De Candolle AP (1813) Théorie élémentaire de la botanique. Deterville, Paris
De Candolle C (1868) Théorie de la feuille. Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles. Genève 32:31–64
De Jussieu AL (1824) Principes de la méthode naturelle des végétaux. F. G. Levrault, Paris
Dickinson TA, Parker WH, Strauss RE (1987) Another approach to leaf shape comparisons. Taxon 36:1–20
Fisher JB (2002) Indeterminate leaves of Chisocheton (Meliaceae): survey of structure and development. Bot J Linn Soc 139:207–221
Guédès M (1979) Morphology of seed-plants. J. Cramer, Vaduz
Honda H (1971) Description of the form of trees by parameters of the tree-like body: effects of the branching angle and the branch length on the shape of the tree-like body. J Theor Biol 31:331–338
Jeune B, Sattler R (1992) Multivariate analysis in process morphology of plants. J Theor Biol 156:147–167
Jeune B, Sattler R (1996) Quelques aspects d’une morphologie continuiste et dynamique. Can J Bot 74:1023–1039
Johnson RA, Wichern DW (1988) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice Hall Series in Statistics, Englewood Cliffs 2nd ed. 1vol
Lacroix C, Jeune B, Purcell-MacDonald S (2003) Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach. Bot J Linn Soc 143:219–230
Lacroix C, Jeune B, Barabé D (2005) Encasement in plant morphology: an integrative approach from genes to organisms. Can J Bot 83:1207–1221
Lebart L, Morineau A, Piron M (1995) Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle. Dunod, Paris
McGhee GR (1991) Theoretical morphology: The concept and its applications. In: Gilinski NL, Signor PW (eds) Analytical paleobiology. short courses in paleontology n°4. University of Tennessee and the Paleontological Society, Knoxville, pp. 87–102
McGhee GR (1999) Theoretical morphology. Colombia University Press, New York
Metcalfe CR, Chalk L (1979) Anatomy of the dicotyledons. Vol. I. Clarendon press, Oxford
Niklas KJ (1994) Morphological evolution through complex domains of fitness. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 91:6772–6779
Niklas KJ (1997) The evolutionary biology of plants. University of Chicago press, Chicago
Rutishauser R (1997) Structural and developmental diversity in Podostemaceae (river-weeds). Aquat Bot 57:29–70
Rutishauser R, Sattler R (1985) Complementarity and heuristic value of contrasting models in structural botany. I–General considerations. Bot Jahrb Syst Pflanzengesch Pflanzengeogr 107:415–455
Rutishauser R, Sattler R (1987) Complementarity and heuristic value of contrasting models in structural botany. II–Case study on leaf whorls: Equisetum and Ceratophyllum. Bot Jahrb Syst Pflanzengesch Pflanzengeogr 109:227–255
Rutishauser R, Sattler R (1989) Complementarity and heuristic value of contrasting models in structural botany. III–Case study on shoot-like leaves ond leaf-like shoots in Utricularia macrorhiza and U. purpurea (Lentibulariaceae). Bot Jahrb Syst Pflanzengesch Pflanzengeogr 111:121–137
Rutishauser R, Isler B (2001) Developmental genetics and morphological evolution of flowering plants, especially bladderworts (Utricularia): fuzzy Arberian morphology complements classical morphology. Ann Bot 88:1173–1202
Sachs Von J (1874) Traité de Botanique conforme à l’état présent de la science. Traduction de P. van Tieghem de la 3ème éd. Savy, Paris
Sattler R (1986) Biophilosophy. Analytic and holistic perspectives. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Sattler R (1988) A dynamic multidimensional approach to floral morphology. In: Leins P, Tucker SC, Endress PK (eds) Aspects of floral development. J. Cramer, Berlin pp. 1–6
Sattler R (1990) Towards a more dynamic plant morphology. Acta Biotheoretica 38:303–315
Sattler R (1992) Process morphology: structural dynamics in development and evolution. Can J Bot 70:708–714
Sattler R (1994) Homology, homeosis, and process morphology in plants. In: Hall BK, (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 423–475
Sattler R, Maier U (1977) Development of the epiphyllous appendages of Begonia hispida var. cucullifera: implications for comparative morphology. Can J Bot 55:411–425
Sattler R, Jeune B (1992) Multivariate analysis confirms the continuum view of plant form. Ann Bot 69:249–262
Sattler R, Rutishauser R (1990) Structural and dynamic descriptions of the development of Utricularia foliosa and U. autralis. Can J Bot 68:1989–2003
Sattler R, Rutishauser R (1997) The fundamental relevance of morphology and morphogenesis to plant research. Ann Bot 80:571–582
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1989) Using multivariate statistics. 2nd ed. Harper & Row, New York,
Tenenhaus M (1994) Méthodes statistiques en gestion. Dunod, Paris
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jeune, B., Barabé, D. & Lacroix, C. Classical and dynamic morphology: toward a synthesis through the space of forms. Acta Biotheor 54, 277–293 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-007-9007-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-007-9007-8