The theory of cognition of Varela and Maturana differs in specific aspects from constructivist theories and so should not be seen or interpreted as another form of constructivism. To encourage the emergence of a discussion on important differences between both theories, this paper aims at highlighting three of these specific aspects, namely the biological roots of cognition, its phylogenic and ontogenic basis, and the nature of reality and knowledge. In many regards, it is possible that the first two points were seen as extensions of constructivism, and had not been theorized previously as distinctions, as is done in the paper. The third point concerning the ideas of “bringing forth a world” represents a clear conceptual shift from the visions inherent in constructivism, and should not be neglected in discussions on epistemology and the nature of knowledge and reality. This third fundamental point brings us to see Varela and Maturana as being different than constructivists, rather seeing them as “bring forthists.”

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract1 Thirty extracts of wood and bark of hardwood trees from Eastern North America were examined for insect growth‐reducing activity in a bioassay with European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, and an antifeedant bioassay with the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae.2 Nine of the bark extracts and four of the wood extracts showed significant growth reducing effects at 0.5% in meridic diets, whereas only two bark extracts and one wood extract showed significant antifeedant effect at the same concentration.3 Slower growing tree species were more biologically active than fast growing ones. Isolation of the bioactive compounds in one of the active species, Prunus serotina, showed that naringenin, its derivative methoxynaringenin, and eriodictyol were responsible for the antifeedant effects.