Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-92sl5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T00:31:58.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Deducing plant function from organic form: challenges and pitfalls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2009

By
Karl J. Niklas
Edited by
Manfred D. Laubichler  and
Jane Maienschein
Manfred D. Laubichler
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Jane Maienschein
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access

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 - 82
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, R. A. (2004). Biology and systematics of the heterokont and haptophyte algae. American Journal of Botany 91, 1508–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Henry N. Jr., Kasper, A. E., Forbes, W. H., Gensel, P. G., and Chaloner, W. G. (1977). Early Devonian flora of the Trout Valley Formation of northern Maine. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 23, 255–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierhorst, D. W. (1971). Morphology of Vascular Plants. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bock, W. J. (1980). The definition and recognition of biological adaptation. American Zoologist 20, 217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bold, H. C. (1967). Morphology of Plants. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. (1981). The use of functional and adaptive criteria in phylogenetic systematics. American Zoologist 21, 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, M. W., Gaylord, B. P., and Cowen, E. (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
Edwards, D. (1970). Fertile Rhyniophytina from the Lower Devonian of Britain. Palaeontology 13, 451–61.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. S. (1980). Evidence for the sporophytic status of the Lower Devonian plant Rhynia gwynne-vaughanii. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 29, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, D. A. (1974). The sporangium of Horneophyton lignieri (Rhyniophytina). American Journal of Botany 61, 405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigen, M. and Winkler, R. (1983). Laws of the Game. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Enquist, B. J. and Niklas, K. J. (2001). Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 410, 655–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enquist, B. J. and Niklas, K. J. (2002). Global allocation rules for patterns of biomass partitioning across seed plants. Science 295, 1517–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gans, C. (1974). Biomechanics: An Approach to Vertebrate Biology. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. M. and Foster, A. S. (1988). Morphology and Evolution of Vascular Plants. New York: Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1970). Evolutionary paleontology and the science of form. Earth-Science Review 6, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1980). Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?Paleobiology 6, 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 205, 581–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, L. E. and Wilcox, L. W. (2000). Algae. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Grant, R. E. (1972). The lophophore and feeding mechanism of the productidina (Brachiopoda). Journal of Paleontology 46, 213–49.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. H. and Pagel, M. D. (1991). The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holbrook, N. M., Denny, M. W., and Koehl, M. A. R. (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
Kaplan, D. R. (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
Kaplan, D. R. and Hagemann, W. (1991). The relationship of cell and organism in vascular plants. Are cells the building blocks of plant form?BioScience 41, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, P. J. (2004). Diversity and evolutionary history of plastids and their hosts. American Journal of Botany 91, 1481–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koehl, M. A. R. and Wainwright, S. A. (1977). Mechanical adaptations of a Giant Kelp. Limnology and Oceanography 22, 1067–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (1992). Plant Biomechanics: An Engineering Approach to Plant Form and Function. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (1994). Plant Allometry: The Scaling of Form and Process. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (1997a). Adaptive walks through fitness landscapes for early vascular land plants. American Journal of Botany 84, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (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
Niklas, K. J. (1997c). The Evolutionary Biology of Plants. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (2004a). Plant allometry: is there a grand unifying theory?Biological Reviews 79, 871–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (2004b). The cell walls that bind the tree of life. BioScience 54, 831–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (2005). Modelling below- and above-ground biomass for non-woody and woody plants. Annals of Botany 95, 315–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niklas, K. J. and Enquist, B. J. (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
Niklas, K. J. and Enquist, B. J. (2002). On the vegetative biomass partitioning of seed plant leaves, stems, and roots. American Naturalist 159, 482–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niklas, K. J. and Kerchner, V. (1984). Mechanical photosynthetic constraints on the evolution of plant shape. Paleobiology 10, 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okubo, A. and Levin, S. A. (1989). A theoretical framework for data analysis of wind dispersal of seeds and pollen. Ecology 70, 329–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, R. (1967). Optimality Principles in Biology. London: Butterworth.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. (1964). The inference of function from structure in fossils. British Journal of Philosophy and Science 15, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. (1968). Some analytic methods in the study of ontogeny in fossils with accretionary skeletons. Journal of Paleontology, Supplement 42, 35–49.Google Scholar
Russell, E. S. (1916). Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Santelices, B. (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
Taylor, T. N. and Taylor, E. L. (1993). The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'Arcy W. (1917). Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, S. (1981). Life in Moving Fluids: The Physical Biology of Flow. Boston, MA: Willard Grant Press.Google Scholar
Wainwright, S. A., Biggs, W. D., Currey, J. D., and Gosline, J. M. (1976). Mechanical Design in Organisms. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×