Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 277–293 | Cite as

Classical and dynamic morphology: toward a synthesis through the space of forms

Regular Article

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’.

Keywords

Shoot Model Plant Organs Categories Form 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anthony M, Sattler R (1990) Pathological ramification of leaves and the pyramid model of plant construction. Acta Biotheoretica 38:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arber A (1950) The natural philosophy of plant form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. De Candolle AP (1813) Théorie élémentaire de la botanique. Deterville, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. De Candolle C (1868) Théorie de la feuille. Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles. Genève 32:31–64Google Scholar
  5. De Jussieu AL (1824) Principes de la méthode naturelle des végétaux. F. G. Levrault, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickinson TA, Parker WH, Strauss RE (1987) Another approach to leaf shape comparisons. Taxon 36:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher JB (2002) Indeterminate leaves of Chisocheton (Meliaceae): survey of structure and development. Bot J Linn Soc 139:207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guédès M (1979) Morphology of seed-plants. J. Cramer, VaduzGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 31:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jeune B, Sattler R (1992) Multivariate analysis in process morphology of plants. J Theor Biol 156:147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeune B, Sattler R (1996) Quelques aspects d’une morphologie continuiste et dynamique. Can J Bot 74:1023–1039Google Scholar
  12. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (1988) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Prentice Hall Series in Statistics, Englewood Cliffs 2nd ed. 1volGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 143:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lacroix C, Jeune B, Barabé D (2005) Encasement in plant morphology: an integrative approach from genes to organisms. Can J Bot 83:1207–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lebart L, Morineau A, Piron M (1995) Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 87–102Google Scholar
  17. McGhee GR (1999) Theoretical morphology. Colombia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Metcalfe CR, Chalk L (1979) Anatomy of the dicotyledons. Vol. I. Clarendon press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Niklas KJ (1994) Morphological evolution through complex domains of fitness. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 91:6772–6779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niklas KJ (1997) The evolutionary biology of plants. University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Rutishauser R (1997) Structural and developmental diversity in Podostemaceae (river-weeds). Aquat Bot 57:29–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rutishauser R, Sattler R (1985) Complementarity and heuristic value of contrasting models in structural botany. I–General considerations. Bot Jahrb Syst Pflanzengesch Pflanzengeogr 107:415–455Google Scholar
  23. 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 109:227–255Google Scholar
  24. 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 111:121–137Google Scholar
  25. Rutishauser R, Isler B (2001) Developmental genetics and morphological evolution of flowering plants, especially bladderworts (Utricularia): fuzzy Arberian morphology complements classical morphology. Ann Bot 88:1173–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Sattler R (1986) Biophilosophy. Analytic and holistic perspectives. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 1–6Google Scholar
  29. Sattler R (1990) Towards a more dynamic plant morphology. Acta Biotheoretica 38:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sattler R (1992) Process morphology: structural dynamics in development and evolution. Can J Bot 70:708–714Google Scholar
  31. 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. 423–475Google Scholar
  32. Sattler R, Maier U (1977) Development of the epiphyllous appendages of Begonia hispida var. cucullifera: implications for comparative morphology. Can J Bot 55:411–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sattler R, Jeune B (1992) Multivariate analysis confirms the continuum view of plant form. Ann Bot 69:249–262Google Scholar
  34. Sattler R, Rutishauser R (1990) Structural and dynamic descriptions of the development of Utricularia foliosa and U. autralis. Can J Bot 68:1989–2003Google Scholar
  35. Sattler R, Rutishauser R (1997) The fundamental relevance of morphology and morphogenesis to plant research. Ann Bot 80:571–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1989) Using multivariate statistics. 2nd ed. Harper & Row, New York, Google Scholar
  37. Tenenhaus M (1994) Méthodes statistiques en gestion. Dunod, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Jeune
    • 1
  • Denis Barabé
    • 1
  • Christian Lacroix
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut de recherche en biologie végétale, Jardin botanique de MontréalUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetownCanada

Personalised recommendations