The interpretation of the flower: a study of some aspects of morphological thought

TLDR: Goethe's theory of the equivalence of the vegetative shoot to the flower, in the angiosperms, is discussed and an attempt is made to evaluate the evidence for it.

Abstract: Summary In the introduction to this study, the chief phases in the interpretation of the flower, from Goethe's day onwards, are briefly indicated in their historical sequence. Goethe's theory of the equivalence of the vegetative shoot to the flower, in the angiosperms, is then discussed and an attempt is made to evaluate the evidence for it. It is shown that this theory, if understood in a broad sense, harmonizes with the modern holistic trend in morphology. It is suggested that the flower is comparable with a vegetative shoot in a condition of permanent infantilism. Special emphasis is laid upon the inflorescence as offering, in some respects, an intermediate term between the vegetative shoot and the flower. After a brief consideration of bracts, sepals, petals and stamens, the Candollean theory of the carpel is discussed, and it is concluded that it has been peculiarly successful in providing a framework for the vast plexus of facts which it is its task to correlate. Some of the difficulties which have been felt in regard to this theory are considered, with special reference to recent work on the gynaeceum structure of the Papaveroideae. The stigma and “transmitting tissue” are then discussed, and it is concluded that there is nothing in the behaviour of this tissue which is out of harmony with the Candollean theory of the carpel. An attempt is made to arrive at a more precise notion of the meaning to be attached to correspondence, equivalence and homology, when these terms are used in connexion with Goethe's comparison of the vegetative and reproductive parts. It is suggested that these terms are best translated into the language of modern thought by the word parallelism, thus avoiding the use of Goethe's type concept, which cannot be safely employed unless its abstractness is constantly borne in mind. The nineteenth-century phase, in which morphological ideas were lifted bodily into an historical setting, is then discussed, and emphasis is laid upon the danger of thus confusing two irreducible worlds of thought. Certain attempts which have been made to relate the flower of the angiosperm to the reproductive organs of plants of earlier geological periods are briefly criticized. In the concluding sections, attention is drawn to the current reaction against phylogenetic morphology, and in favour of the purely comparative morphology contemplated by Goethe. A slight sketch is given of Delpino and Troll's theories of the flower, in which “form” is considered as distinct from “organization”. Whether these views are accepted or not, the “Gestaltlehre” is at least an indication that the morphological ideas, which Goethe initiated before the end of the eighteenth century, may even to-day suggest fresh approaches to the problem of the interpretation of the flower.