Acta Biotheoretica 54 (4) (2006)
|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||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Antonio Moreno-Sandoval & José Miguel Goñi-Menoyo (2002). Spanish Inflectional Morphology in DATR. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (1):79-105.
Giovanni Camardi (2001). Richard Owen, Morphology and Evolution. Journal of the History of Biology 34 (3):481 - 515.
Wolf-Ernst Reify, Roger D. K. Thomas & Martin S. Fischer (1985). Constructional Morphology: The Analysis of Constraints in Evolution Dedicated to A. Seilacher in Honour of His 60. Birthday. Acta Biotheoretica 34 (2-4).
C. D. N. Barel (1993). Concepts of an Architectonic Approach to Transformation Morphology. Acta Biotheoretica 41 (4).
Jacob L. Dubbeldam (2007). An Annotated Bibliography of C.J. Van der Klaauw with Notes on the Impact of His Work. Acta Biotheoretica 55 (1).
Ming Anthony & Rolf Sattler (1990). Pathological Ramification of Leaves and the Pyramid Model of Plant Construction. Acta Biotheoretica 38 (3-4).
P. Schilperoord-Jarke (1997). The Concept of Morphological Polarity and its Implication on the Concept of the Essential Organs and on the Concept of the Organisation Type of the Dicotyledonous Plant. Acta Biotheoretica 45 (1).
Rolf Sattler (1990). Towards a More Dynamic Plant Morphology. Acta Biotheoretica 38 (3-4).
Robert Kaspar (1977). Der Typus — Idee Und Realität. Acta Biotheoretica 26 (3).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #133,479 of 549,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?