Indeterminate leaves of Chisocheton (Meliaceae): survey of structure and development

Fisher, Jack B.

doi:10.1046/j.1095-8339.2002.00050.x

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It would be erroneous to assume that we want to substitute the classical approach with our idea of dynamic morphology. We prefer not to enter the debate over choosing one model over another (Fisher, 2002; Timonin, 2002) but instead view dynamic morphology as a perspective complementing the traditional one. Using the best applicable model under specific circumstances seems to us to be more appropriate and in this context it is encouraging to see some type of conceptual convergence between our model and other disciplines (mathematics, computer science and molecular genetics) as they apply to plants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach

Lacroix

Jeune

Purcell-Macdonald

2003

Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent developmental studies suggest that the compound leaf is a more or less incompletely developed shoot. Instead of treating compound leaves and shoots as non‐homologous, this interpretation draws a continuum between them. The present work considers the plant as a hierarchical series of units on which similar developmental processes are at work, and where each level (shoot, compound leaf, leaflet) is ‘repeated’ by the next higher level. Measurements related to the expression of developmental processes operating on leaves at the shoot level and on leaflets at the compound leaf level were used to determine if similar processes are at work at these different levels during early stages of organogenesis. Plants with compound leaves showing acropetal leaflet inception, representing a total of 16 species from ten eudicot families, were studied. Based on several types of quantitative analyses, there appears to be a continuum between so‐called shoots, compound leaves and leaflets in the species studied. This perspective, qualified as dynamic morphology, both parallels and complements the classical interpretation. © 2003 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2003, 143, 219−230.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach

Lacroix

Jeune

Purcell-Macdonald

2003

Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In morphology, there are situations where atypical organs, for example in Utricularia (Sattler et Rutishauser 1990) and Chisocheton (Fisher 2002), are very difficult to integrate in the categories of classical morphology (Table 5). With the exception of trichomes, data are based on personal observations compatible with a dynamic morphology approach even if they are placed in the morphospace based on a ponderation (i.e.…”

Section: Particular Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in classical morphology we see that one type of weighting, as perfectly chosen as it may be, cannot be used to classify all the morphological elements correctly, even if we limit ourselves to aerial vegetative structures. Alternately, only a dynamic morphology can escape those difficulties regardless of the weighting used Data are based on personal observations except for Begonia (Sattler and Maier 1977), Chisocheton (Fisher 2002), and Utricularia ( because the boundaries between categories are not an issue. The most significant aspect of our results is that the two different views of morphology can be quantified within the same theoretical framework.…”

Section: Weigth Of Charactersmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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'.

show abstract

“…Root-shoot mosaics, e.g., Pinguieula "roots" closely resembling Utricularia "stolons" (Rutishauser and Isler, 2001); 2. Stem-leaf mosaics, e.g., indeterminate leaves of Guarea and Chisocheton (Fisher and Rutishauser, 1990;Fisher, 2002;Fukuda et al, 2003); 3. Leaf-stipule mosaics, e.g., leaf-like stipules being equivalent to leaves in stipular position in GaliumRubia group (Rutishauser, 1999); 4.…”

Section: Classical Model Continuum Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evo-devo and the search for homology (“sameness”) in biological systems

Rutishauser¹,

MOLINE²

2005

Theory in Biosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developmental biology and evolutionary studies have merged into evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo"). This synthesis already influenced and still continues to change the conceptual framework of structural biology. One of the cornerstones of structural biology is the concept of homology. But the search for homology ("sameness") of biological structures depends on our favourite perspectives (axioms, paradigms). Five levels of homology ("sameness") can be identified in the literature, although they overlap to some degree: (i) serial homology (homonomy) within modular organisms, (ii) historical homology (synapomorphy), which is taken as the only acceptable homology by many biologists, (iii) underlying homology (i.e., parallelism) in closely related taxa, (iv) deep evolutionary homology due to the "same" master genes in distantly related phyla, and (v) molecular homology exclusively at gene level. The following essay gives emphasis on the heuristic advantages of seemingly opposing perspectives in structural biology, with examples mainly from comparative plant morphology. The organization of the plant body in the majority of angiosperms led to the recognition of the classical root-shoot model. In some lineages bauplan rules were transcended during evolution and development. This resulted in morphological misfits such as the Podostemaceae, peculiar eudicots adapted to submerged river rocks. Their transformed "roots" and "shoots" fit only to a limited degree into the classical model which is based on either-or thinking. It has to be widened into a continuum model by taking over elements of fuzzy logic and fractal geometry to accommodate for lineages such as the Podostemaceae.

show abstract

Indeterminate leaves of Chisocheton (Meliaceae): survey of structure and development

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach

Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach

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

Evo-devo and the search for homology (“sameness”) in biological systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About