Abstract
From the point of view of a dynamic morphology, form is not only the result of process(es) — it is process. This process may be analyzed in terms of two pairs of fundamental processes: growth and decay, differentiation and dedifferentiation. Each of these processes can be analyzed in terms of various modalities (parameters) and submodalities. This paper deals with those of growth (see Table 1). For the purpose of systematits and phylogenetic reconstruction the modalities and submodalities can be considered dynamic characters that have “states”. Each “state” of such a dynamic character is a more detailed process, hence not static. For example, determinate growth represents a “state” of the dynamic character (or modality) of growth duration.
The processes of Table 1 can be applied to the whole plant kingdom (although in certain cases only some processes of the whole set may be applicable). Thus, the diversity of plant form is seen as a diversity of process combinations. From this point of view, change in form implies change in the process combination(s). Questions that arise are, for example, the following: Which process combinations actually occur? Which of these are the most frequent? How and why have process combinations changed during ontogeny and phylogeny?
In comparative morphogenesis, process combinations are compared within an ontogeny or between ontogenies. The combinations may be repeated (i.e., conserved) or changed. Since repetition is limited, regularity that is the basis for structural categories is also limited or relative. With regard to change in process combinations, sequential change within an ontogeny and phylogenetic change between ontogenies can be distinguished. A large number of additional processes, such as heterochrony, that have been investigated by many zoologists and botanists, refer to these sequential and phylogenetic changes.
General implications and consequences of the proposed approach are pointed out. As well, its limits, which are related to the language and concepts used, are discussed. The importance of a dynamic language is emphasized.
Résumé
La forme des plantes non seulement est le résultat de processus, mais aussi le(s) processus même(s). En analysant on peut distinguer deux paires de processus fondamentaux: la croissance et la décomposition, la différentiation et la dédifféerentiation. En ce qui conceme la croissance, on peut distinguer en plus un nombre de modalités et submodalités, chacune aver des “états” qui representent des processus plus détaillés (Table 1). Par exemple, la submodalité de la symétrie a des états de symétrie radiale et dorsiventrale qui representent des processus détaillés de croissance radiale et dorsiventrale.
De ce point de vue, la diversité des formes du règne végétale est une diversité de combinaisons de ces processus. Certaines des combinaisons sont fréquentes tandis que d'autres sont rares.
En morphogenèse comparée on peut distinguer des processus additionels (comme, par example la néoténie) qui désignent la transformation des combinaisons de processus. Cette transformation peut arriver pendant l'ontogenèse et la phylogenèse.
Plusieurs implications et conséquences ainsi que des limites de l'approche proposée sont discutées. Les limites sont attribuables aux notions et au language utilisés. L'importance d'un language basé sur des notions dynamiques est soulignée.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anthony, M., Sattler, R., and Cooney-Sovetts, C. (1983). Morphogenetic potential of Fraxinus omus under the influence of the gall mite Aceria fraxinivora.- Can. J. Bot. 61: 1580–1594.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order.- London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Carroll, J.B. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writing of Benjamin Lee Whorf.- New York, Technology Press of MIT and Wiley.
Cooney-Sovetts, C. and Sattler, R. (1987). Phyllociade development in the Asparagaceae: an example of homoeosis.- Bot J. Linn. Soc. 94: 327–371.
Cutter, E.G. (1971). Plant Anatomy. Part 2. Organs.- London, Arnold.
Doyle, J.A. (1978). Origin of angiosperms.- Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9: 365–392.
Dugle, J.R. and Hawkins, J.L. (1985). Leaf development and morphology in ash: influence of gamma radiation.- Can. J. Bot. 63: 1458–1468.
Etherington, J.R. (1975). Environment and Plant Ecology, London, New York, Wiley.
Gould, S.J. (1977). Ontogeny and Phylogeny.- Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press.
Green, P.B. (1987). Inheritance of patterns: analysis from phenotype to gene.- Am. Zool. 27: 657–673.
Hallé, F., Oldeman, R.A.A., and Tomlinson, P.B. (1978). Tropical Trees and Forests. An Architectural Analysis.- Berlin, Springer.
Ihlenfeldt, H.-D. (1971). Über ontogenetische Abbreviationen und Zeitkorrelationsänderungen und ihre Bedeutung für Morphologie und Systematik.- Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 84: 91–107.
Kaplan, D.R. (1980). Heteroblastic leaf development in Acacia: morphological and morphogenetic implications.- Cellule 73: 135–203.
Klotz, G. (1985). Zur Typologie des Blattes.- Flora 176: 189–196.
Lord, E.M. and Hill, J.P. (1987). Evidence for heterochrony in the evolution of plant form. In: R.A. Raff and E.C. Raff, eds., Development as an evolutionary process, 47–70.- New York, Liss.
Merrill, E.K. (1986a). Heteroblastic seedlings of green ash. I. Predictability of leaf form and primordial length.- Can J. Bot. 64: 2645–2649.
Merrill, E.K. (1986b). Heteroblastic seedlings of green ash. II. Early development of simple and compound leaves.- Can. J. Bot. 64: 2650–2661.
Meyen, S.V. (1987). Fundamentals of Palaeobotany. London, Chapman & Hall.
Niklas, K.J. (1982). Computer simulations of early land plant branching morphologies: canalization of patterns during evolution?- Paleobiology 8: 196–210.
Niklas, K.J. (1986). Computer-simulated plant evolution.- Sci. Amer. 254: 76–86.
Popper, K.R. (1966). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Vol. 1, 5th ed.- Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press.
Rothwell, G.W. (1987). The role of development in plant phylogeny: a palaeobotanical perspective.- Rev. Paleobot. Palynol. 50: 97–114.
Rutishauser, R. and Sattler, R. (1986). Architecture and development of the phyllode-stipule whorls of Acacia longipedunculata: controversial interpretations and continuum approach.- Can. J. Bot. 64: 1987–2019.
Sattler, R. (1972). Centrifugal primordial inception in floral development.- Adv. Plant Morph. (1972): 170–178.
Sattler, R. (1974a). A new conception of the shoot of higher plants.- J. Theor. Biol. 47: 367–382.
Sattler, R. (19746). Essentialism in plant morphology.- 14th Int. Congr. Hist. Sci. Proc. No. 3, 464–467.
Sattler, R. (1978). ‘Fusion’ and ‘continuity’ in floral morphology.- Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 36: 397–405.
Sattler, R. (1986). Biophilosophy. Analytic and Holistic Perspectives. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo, Springer Verlag.
Sattler, R. (1988a). Homeosis in plants.- Amer. J. Bot. 75: 1606–1617
Sattler, R. (1988b). A dynamic multidimensional approach to floral morphology.- In: P. Leins, S.C. Tucker and P.K. Endress, eds., Aspects of Floral Development, 1–6.- Stuttgart, Cramer.
Sattler, R., Luckert, D., and Rutishauser, R. (1988). Symmetry in plants: phyllode and stipule development in Acacia longipedunculata.- Can. J. Bot. 66: 1270–1284.
Stebbins, G.L. (1974). Flowering Plants. Evolution Above the Species Level.- Cambridge, Belknap Press.
Steingraeber, D.A. and Fisher, J.B. (1986). Indeterminate growth of leaves in Guarea (Meliaceae): a twig analogue.- Amer. J. Bot. 73: 852–862.
Takhtajan, A. (1972). Patterns of ontogenetic alterations in the evolution of higher plants.- Phytomorphology 22: 164–170.
Tomlinson, P.B. (1982). Chance and design in the construction of plants.- Acta Biotheor. 31A: 162–183.
Troll, W. (1949). Die Urbildlichkeit der organischen Gestaltung und Goethes Prinzip der Variablen Proportionen.- Experentia (Basel) 5: 491–504.
Troll, W. (1954). Praktische Einführung in die Pflanzenmorphologie. 1. Teil. Der vegetative Aufbau.- Jena, Fischer.
Woodger, J.H. (1967). Biological Principles. Reissued with a new introduction.- New York, Humanities Press.
Zimmermann, W. (1959). Die Phylogenie der Pflanzen. 2nd ed.- Jena, Fischer.
Zimmermann, W. (1961). Phylogenetic shifting of organs, tissues, and phases in the pteridophytes.- Can. J. Bot. 39: 1547–1553.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sattler, R. Towards a more dynamic plant morphology. Acta Biotheor 38, 303–315 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00047245
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00047245