Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- List of journal abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Form and function in Evo Devo: historical and conceptual reflections
- 3 Deducing plant function from organic form: challenges and pitfalls
- 4 Evolution in the light of embryos: seeking the origins of novelties in ontogeny
- 5 A focus on both form and function in examining selection versus constraint
- 6 Innovation and diversity in functional morphology
- 7 The developmental evolution of avian digit homology: an update
- 8 Functional analysis and character transformation
- 9 The nature of constraints
- 10 Toward a mechanistic Evo Devo
- Index
- References
3 - Deducing plant function from organic form: challenges and pitfalls
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- List of journal abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Form and function in Evo Devo: historical and conceptual reflections
- 3 Deducing plant function from organic form: challenges and pitfalls
- 4 Evolution in the light of embryos: seeking the origins of novelties in ontogeny
- 5 A focus on both form and function in examining selection versus constraint
- 6 Innovation and diversity in functional morphology
- 7 The developmental evolution of avian digit homology: an update
- 8 Functional analysis and character transformation
- 9 The nature of constraints
- 10 Toward a mechanistic Evo Devo
- Index
- References
Summary
“All we know in advance when we construct a machine is the function it will have, not its structure or form.”
“We cannot use general principles to sum up historical reality any more than we can use the principles of thermodynamics to construct a Rolls-Royce.”
Eigen and Winkler (1983)INTRODUCTION
A common thread throughout the history of comparative morphology is the debate over the primacy of form versus function (Russell 1916). Does form follow function, or does function follow form? This “antithetic” argument appears to have an almost universal appeal – it recurs in the analysis of art, literature, and architecture, as well as biology, where explicit analogies with “design” are often made. Historically, some of the leading morphologists of their day had strong and divided opinions. Others saw the antithetic argument as a non-issue. Geoffroy believed that form determines function. For him, form had supremacy. In contrast, Cuvier, like Aristotle, argued that functional and structural “harmony” is essential to ecological success, without which a species would not exist. Because species obviously do exist, it logically follows that this “harmony” exists. Cuvier therefore argued strongly that structure and function had to be treated as one and inseparable. Arber too felt that the contrast between form and function ceases to exist once the word “form” is given its full biological content. However, for her, the opposition of the two concepts was the simple, albeit insidious result of a mistaken analogy between human artifacts and living things.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Form and Function in Developmental Evolution , pp. 47 - 82Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
(2004). Biology and systematics of the heterokont and haptophyte algae. American Journal of Botany 91, 1508–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jr., , , , and (1977). Early Devonian flora of the Trout Valley Formation of northern Maine. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 23, 255–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). The definition and recognition of biological adaptation. American Zoologist 20, 217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1981). The use of functional and adaptive criteria in phylogenetic systematics. American Zoologist 21, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1997). Flow and flexibility II. The roles of size and shape in determining wave forces on the bull kelp Nereocystis luetkeana. The Journal of Experimental Biology 200, 3165–83.Google ScholarPubMed
(1970). Fertile Rhyniophytina from the Lower Devonian of Britain. Palaeontology 13, 451–61.Google Scholar
(1980). Evidence for the sporophytic status of the Lower Devonian plant Rhynia gwynne-vaughanii. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 29, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974). The sporangium of Horneophyton lignieri (Rhyniophytina). American Journal of Botany 61, 405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410, 655–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning across seed plants. Science 295, 1517–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1974). Biomechanics: An Approach to Vertebrate Biology. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
(1970). Evolutionary paleontology and the science of form. Earth-Science Review 6, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?Paleobiology 6, 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 205, 581–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1972). The lophophore and feeding mechanism of the productidina (Brachiopoda). Journal of Paleontology 46, 213–49.Google Scholar
, , and (1991). Intertidal “trees”: consequences of aggregation on the mechanical and photosynthetic properties of sea-palms Postelsia palmaeformis Ruprecht. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 146, 39–67.Google Scholar
(1992). The relationship of cells to organisms in plants: problem and implications of an organismal perspective. International Journal of Plant Sciences 153, S28–S37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1991). The relationship of cell and organism in vascular plants. Are cells the building blocks of plant form?BioScience 41, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). Diversity and evolutionary history of plastids and their hosts. American Journal of Botany 91, 1481–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1977). Mechanical adaptations of a Giant Kelp. Limnology and Oceanography 22, 1067–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992). Plant Biomechanics: An Engineering Approach to Plant Form and Function. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Plant Allometry: The Scaling of Form and Process. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1997a). Adaptive walks through fitness landscapes for early vascular land plants. American Journal of Botany 84, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997b). Effects of hypothetical developmental barriers and abrupt environmental changes on adaptive walks in a computer-generated domain for early vascular land plants. Paleobiology 23, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004a). Plant allometry: is there a grand unifying theory?Biological Reviews 79, 871–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Modelling below- and above-ground biomass for non-woody and woody plants. Annals of Botany 95, 315–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2001). Invariant scaling relationships for interspecific plant biomass production rates and body size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98, 2922–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). On the vegetative biomass partitioning of seed plant leaves, stems, and roots. American Naturalist 159, 482–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1984). Mechanical photosynthetic constraints on the evolution of plant shape. Paleobiology 10, 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1989). A theoretical framework for data analysis of wind dispersal of seeds and pollen. Ecology 70, 329–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1964). The inference of function from structure in fossils. British Journal of Philosophy and Science 15, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1968). Some analytic methods in the study of ontogeny in fossils with accretionary skeletons. Journal of Paleontology, Supplement 42, 35–49.Google Scholar
(1916). Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
(2004). A comparison of ecological responses among aclonal (unitary), clonal, and coalescing macroalgae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 300, 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1993). The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
(1981). Life in Moving Fluids: The Physical Biology of Flow. Boston, MA: Willard Grant Press.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by