DOCSLIB.ORG

The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form BOOK REVIEW Arber, Agnes, 2012 The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form Cambridge University Press, New York. 266 pp. £18.99, Paperback. ISBN: 9781108045056 (www.cambridge.org/clc) For most scholars in the West, studies on philosophy tradition (embraces ideas on the plant form (known as plant morphology) have meaning and content of plant morphology). been part of two main schools of thought. First, Chapters Two, Three and Four are a tour of natural philosophy since Aristotle (pre-moder- the main schools in plant morphology from the nity tradition) and, second modern biology Greeks, Aristotle and Theophrastus. Middle since the nineteen century (natural history and Ages, Albertus Magnus and Andrea Cesalpino. modern science). An attitude toward the orga- And later, from Joachim Jung (17th century) to nism as an integrated whole is common to find Goethe (1749-1832) and de Candolle (1778- in the natural philosophy tradition. In contrast, 1841). Chapter Five covers the concept of the modern biology treats the organism in a more organization type (Urpflanze). In Chapter Six, analytical way, thereby treating the organism’s Arber introduces her ideas on the Partial-shoot form and function as a duality or as separate theory of the leaf that she continues describing and independent entities. For long time, this through Chapters Seven (includes an extension dichotomy of form and function has been the of previous chapter concerning the whole- source of an endless debate not only in the shoot-hood in the leaf), Eight (includes more sciences and philosophy, but also in the arts, problems regarding the partial-shoot theory) especially in architecture. A famous axiom in and Nine (includes the topic of repetitive architecture states, “Form follows function”. branching and the gestalt type). Chapter Ten Among plant morphologists, there is, appa- describes the mechanism of plant morphology rently, a consensus that form and function are and Chapter Eleven its interpretation. two aspects of the same unity. However, the Arber found in the botany of the Aristote- intimate nature of form or the dynamic of form lian school a legacy of admirable description of is maintained under two interpretations (e.g. plant fundamental features and the whole plant continuous and discrete morphology) for expla- in terms of currently known areas of study such natory purposes. Agnes Arber (1879-1960) as morphology, physiology and biochemistry, in her book The Natural Philosophy of Plant reproduction and development, and life-histo- Form, first published in 1950, provides the ries. Theophrastus was describing organs –root basis for the continuous plant morphology and and stem- with great details as shown by one of currently known as fuzzy Arberian morpholo- his records referring the structure of the palm gy. Is the natural philosophy of plant form the stem: “the fibres [vascular bundles] do not run new plant morphology? Was Arber right? through the wood, nor do they run to a good The book is divided into eleven chapters. length, nor are they all set symmetrically, but The first chapter is an introduction to the run in every direction” (p. 16-17). Arber descri- meaning of plant morphology in the natural bes the great contribution of Theophrastus on Rev. Biol. Trop. (Int. J. Trop. Biol. ISSN-0034-7744) Vol. 63 (3): 885-886, September 2015 885 shoot morphology and the remarkable obser- been made thanks to the partial shoot theory vation by him in distinguishing between mono- of the leaf. podial and sympodial growth patterns. The This book was not only important in the Aristotelian idea that the roots of plants resem- mid-twentieth century. It is also important in ble the mouths of animals led Arber to picture the twenty-first century for the new generation the plant as an animal standing on its head. In of plant morphologists looking for the legacy this analogy, the plant root system resembles of natural philosophy into modern science. the neuron system of animals. This is a power- Arber’s natural philosophy approach opened ful metaphor in understanding the fundamental a new way to look at the plant form from a difference between animals and plants. dynamic perspective that challenges the status In her review of the relationship between quo of classical plant morphology. Because parts in the flowering plants she distanced her- of that, Arber was right. Natural philosophy self from the analytical approach and embraced in the Aristotelian tradition brings the ratio- the legacy of the Aristotelian natural philo- nality to capture the fundamental essences sophy. If form and function are two sides of of the organism. Contrary to modern science the same coin, Arber found in this tradition where the organism is interpreted narrowly the right element for the foundation of a deep in terms of mechanical explanations or to use morphology since the mid-twentieth century. In the Aristotelian terms, material and efficient other words, Arberian plant morphology is now causes, the interpretation of plant morpholo- more of a source of integration and meaning gy from the natural philosophy perspective than Classical morphology. includes also, the teleological aspects, final Arber was a distinguished British plant and formal causes, in terms of the Aristo- morphologist and a Fellow of the Royal Socie- telian tradition. As Arber referring to Kant ty. Her contribution, many years later, has says “mechanism without teleology is blind, shed light into the new field of evolutionary while teleology without mechanism is empty” developmental biology, informally known as (p. 203). Currently, natural philosophy makes evo-devo. The Arberian fuzzy morphology has explicit the two sides of biology, mechanistic followers in different continents among plant and teleological, and offers the pathway for a morphologists. This school of morphology is delayed reconciliation between both modes of still active and important contributions have thought. Camilo Florez SNC-Lavalin Canada [email protected] 886 Rev. Biol. Trop. (Int. J. Trop. Biol. ISSN-0034-7744) Vol. 63 (3): 885-886, September 2015.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Discovery of Pulmonary Circulation: from Imhotep to William Harvey
    The discovery of pulmonary circulation: From Imhotep to William Harvey Mohamed ElMaghawry1,2 *, Alberto Zanatta2, and Fabio Zampieri2 1: Department of Cardiology, Aswan Heart Centre, Aswan, Egypt 2: Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Science, University of Padua, Padua, Italy * [email protected] Abstract In his quest to comprehend his existence, Man has long been exploring his outer world (macro- cosmos), as well as his inner world (micro-cosmos). In modern times, monmental advances in the fields of physics, chemistry, and other natural sciences have reflected on how we understand the anatomy and physiology of the human body and circulation. Yet, humanity took a long and winding road to reach what we acknowledge today as solid facts of cardiovascular physiology. In this article, we will review some of the milestones along this road. “The history of the pulmonary circulation provides a measure of Man’s thinking about himself and his place in the Universe.” (1) Alfred P. Fishman (1918-1990), president of American Physiological Society. The heart in ancient Egyptian medicine The ancient Egyptians considered the heart as the central organ of the body, both physiologically and spiritually. The earliest hieroglyphic depiction of the heart was as an organ with eight vessels attached to it (Figure 1A). After the third Dynasty, the heart was modified to a simpler jar-shape (Figure 1B) (2). The Smith papyrus (ca. 1600 BC) is the oldest known surgical treatise on trauma. It was named after Edwin Smith, the American Egyptologist who purchased the scroll in Luxor in 1862. Many historians believe that the text of the Smith papyrus was copied from a much older document originally written by Imhotep, the prominent high priest and physician of the Old Kingdom (ca.3000-2500 BC).
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Life Magill’S Encyclopedia of Science
    MAGILLS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE PLANT LIFE MAGILLS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE PLANT LIFE Volume 4 Sustainable Forestry–Zygomycetes Indexes Editor Bryan D. Ness, Ph.D. Pacific Union College, Department of Biology Project Editor Christina J. Moose Salem Press, Inc. Pasadena, California Hackensack, New Jersey Editor in Chief: Dawn P. Dawson Managing Editor: Christina J. Moose Photograph Editor: Philip Bader Manuscript Editor: Elizabeth Ferry Slocum Production Editor: Joyce I. Buchea Assistant Editor: Andrea E. Miller Page Design and Graphics: James Hutson Research Supervisor: Jeffry Jensen Layout: William Zimmerman Acquisitions Editor: Mark Rehn Illustrator: Kimberly L. Dawson Kurnizki Copyright © 2003, by Salem Press, Inc. All rights in this book are reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner what- soever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address the publisher, Salem Press, Inc., P.O. Box 50062, Pasadena, California 91115. Some of the updated and revised essays in this work originally appeared in Magill’s Survey of Science: Life Science (1991), Magill’s Survey of Science: Life Science, Supplement (1998), Natural Resources (1998), Encyclopedia of Genetics (1999), Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues (2000), World Geography (2001), and Earth Science (2001). ∞ The paper used in these volumes conforms to the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48-1992 (R1997). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Magill’s encyclopedia of science : plant life / edited by Bryan D.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Review of Systematic Biology and Nomenclature - Alessandro Minelli
    BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE FUNDAMENTALS AND SYSTEMATICS – Vol. II - Historical Review of Systematic Biology and Nomenclature - Alessandro Minelli HISTORICAL REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE Alessandro Minelli Department of Biology, Via U. Bassi 58B, I-35131, Padova,Italy Keywords: Aristotle, Belon, Cesalpino, Ray, Linnaeus, Owen, Lamarck, Darwin, von Baer, Haeckel, Sokal, Sneath, Hennig, Mayr, Simpson, species, taxa, phylogeny, phenetic school, phylogenetic school, cladistics, evolutionary school, nomenclature, natural history museums. Contents 1. The Origins 2. From Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance Encyclopedias 3. From the First Monographers to Linnaeus 4. Concepts and Definitions: Species, Homology, Analogy 5. The Impact of Evolutionary Theory 6. The Last Few Decades 7. Nomenclature 8. Natural History Collections Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The oldest roots of biological systematics are found in folk taxonomies, which are nearly universally developed by humankind to cope with the diversity of the living world. The logical background to the first modern attempts to rationalize the classifications was provided by Aristotle's logic, as embodied in Cesalpino's 16th century classification of plants. Major advances were provided in the following century by Ray, who paved the way for the work of Linnaeus, the author of standard treatises still regarded as the starting point of modern classification and nomenclature. Important conceptual progress was due to the French comparative anatomists of the early 19th century UNESCO(Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire) – andEOLSS to the first work in comparative embryology of von Baer. Biological systematics, however, was still searching for a unifying principle that could provide the foundation for a natural, rather than conventional, classification.SAMPLE This principle wasCHAPTERS provided by evolutionary theory: its effects on classification are already present in Lamarck, but their full deployment only happened in the 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Anfänge Und Ziele Der Vegetationsgeographie
    FID Biodiversitätsforschung Mitteilungen der Floristisch-Soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Anfänge und Ziele der Vegetationsgeographie Schmithüsen, Josef 1957 Digitalisiert durch die Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main im Rahmen des DFG-geförderten Projekts FID Biodiversitätsforschung (BIOfid) Weitere Informationen Nähere Informationen zu diesem Werk finden Sie im: Suchportal der Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main. Bitte benutzen Sie beim Zitieren des vorliegenden Digitalisats den folgenden persistenten Identifikator: urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:4-89837 Anfänge und Ziele der Vegetationsgeographie *) von JOSEF SCHMITHÜSEN, Karlsruhe . 1 . Geobotanik und Vegetationsgeographie . Oft ist die Frage aufgeworfen worden , ob die Lehre von der Verbreitung der Lebewesen auf der Erde ( Biochorologie ) wissenschaftssystematisch zu der Biologie ( Botanik und Zoologie ) oder zu der Geographie zu rechnen sei . Tatsächlich werden seit je die Probleme der räumlichen Verteilung der Pflanzen und Tiere und ihrer Beziehungen zu der Umwelt sowohl von den Biologen als auch von den Geographen und oft in enger Zusammenarbeit von beiden erforscht . Die Ausgangspunkte und die Ziele der Betrachtung sind jedoch bei beiden grundsätzlich verschieden . Forschungsobjekt der Biologie ist das Leben mit seinen Formen , Vorgängen und Gesetzen , die neben anderen auch einen räumlichen Aspekt haben . Gegenstand der Geo¬ graphie ist die Erdoberfläche ( Geosphäre ) in ihrer Gliederung in Länder und Landschaften
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Review
    1 Historical Review INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a brief historical review of progress in the field of plant water relations because the authors feel that it is impossible to fully understand the present without some knowledge of the past. As the Danish philosopher Kierkegaarde wrote, "Life can only be understood backward, but it can only be lived forward," and this also is true of science. The present generation needs to be reminded that some generally accepted concepts have their origin in ideas of 17th or 18th century writers and although others were suggested many decades ago, they were neglected until recently. As might be expected, the importance of water to plant growth was recog- nized by prehistoric farmers because irrigation systems already existed in Egypt, Babylonia (modern Iraq), and China at the beginning of recorded history, and the first European explorers found extensive irrigation systems in both North and South America. However, irrigation was not used extensively in agriculture in the United States until after the middle of the 19th century and little research on plant water relations occurred until the 20th century. Early Research Although plant water relations appear to have been the first area of plant physiology to be studied, progress was slow from Aristotle who died in 322 B.C. to the middle of the 19th century. According to Aristotle, plants absorbed their food ready for use from the soil, and plant nutrition was controlled by a soul or vital principle that ailowed plants to absorb only those substances useful in 2 1. Historical Review growth. This idea only began to be questioned in the 17th century by Jung, van Helmont, Mariotte, and others, and it ~ersistedinto the 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • La Vita E L'opera Botanica Di Andrea Cesalpino
    SCHEDA DI APPROFONDIMENTO · I N S I G H T La vita e l’opera botanica di Andrea Cesalpino The life and botanical work of Andrea Cesalpino ndrea Cesalpino (Fig. 6) nacque nel 1525 Aad Arezzo. Poco si conosce sulla sua vita negli anni della sua gioventù; secondo fonti at- tendibili si sarebbe trasferito presto a Pisa (forse nel 1545) per seguire i corsi di quella Università, dove si sarebbe laureato in medicina intorno al 1551. A Pisa seguì le lezioni di botanica medica k di Ghini, che era appunto «Lettore de’ Semplici» e quando quest’ultimo si trasferì a Bologna nel 1555, Cesalpino lo sostituì nell’insegnamento della «materia medica» e nella conduzione del- l’orto botanico pisano, di cui terrà la guida for- male fi no al 1558, come «Prefetto» dell’orto. Con lo spostamento dell’orto botanico dalla sede ori- ginaria (presso l’arsenale) alla zona di S. Marta venne affi data di nuovo a Cesalpino la «prefettu- ra» dell’Orto che terrà dal 1563 al 1583. Nomi- nato «Professore ordinario di medicina pratica», continuò nell’insegnamento fi no al 1591 quando venne chiamato a Roma da Papa Clemente VIII per assumere la carica di insegnante di medicina alla «Sapienza» e di archiatra pontifi cio, e qui restò fi no alla sua morte, avvenuta nel 1603 (Vi- viani 1917; 1927; Moggi 1981; 2006; 2008b). Durante il periodo pisano Cesalpino svolse una intensa attività di studioso, di ricercatore e di insegnante ed effettuò frequenti viaggi in tutta la Toscana per incrementare le sue conoscenze sul- la fl ora locale.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Found in the Middle Parts of the State Grow Here, Excepting the Alpine Flowers
    CULTIVATION BOTANY.— Wood grows here [Concord] with great rapidity; and it is supposed there is as much now as there was twenty years ago. Walden woods at the south, and other lots towards the southwest parts of the town, are the most extensive, covering several hundred acres of light-soil land. Much of the fuel, which is consumed, is, however brought from the neighbouring towns. The most common trees are the oak, pine, maple, elm, white birch, chestnut, walnut, &c., &c. Hemlock and spruce are very rare. The ornamental trees transplanted, in this as in most other towns, do not appear to have been placed with much regularity; but as they are, they contribute much to the comfort and beauty of the town. The elm, buttonwood, horse-chestnut, and fruit trees have very properly taken the place of sickly poplars, in ornamenting the dwellings. The large elm in front of the court-house, –the pride of the common,– is almost unrivalled in beauty. It is about “three score and ten,” but is still growing with youthful vigor and uniform rapidity. Dr. Jarvis, who is familiar with the botany of Concord, informs me, that “most of the plants found in the middle parts of the state grow here, excepting the alpine flowers. The extensive low lands produce abundantly the natural families of the aroideæ, typhæ, cyperoideæ, gramineæ, junci, corymbiferæ and unbelliferæ. These genera especially abound. There are also found, the juncus militaris (bayonet rush), on the borders of Fairhaven pond; cornus florida; lobelia carinalis (cardinal flower) abundant on the borders of the river; polygala cruciata, in the east parts of the town; nyssa villosa (swamp hornbeam) at the foot of Fairhaven hill.” The cicuta Americana (hemlock) grows abundant on the intervals.
    [Show full text]
  • Carolus Linnaeus (Carl Von Linné), 1707-1778: the Swede Who Named Almost Everything
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Faculty Publications Genetics Spring 2010 Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), 1707-1778: The wedeS Who Named Almost Everything Charles T. Ambrose University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/microbio_facpub Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, and the Medical Humanities Commons Repository Citation Ambrose, Charles T., "Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), 1707-1778: The wS ede Who Named Almost Everything" (2010). Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Faculty Publications. 34. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/microbio_facpub/34 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), 1707-1778: The Swede Who Named Almost Everything Notes/Citation Information Published in The Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha-Honor Medical Society, v. 73, no. 2, p. 4-10. © 2010 by Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. The opc yright holder has granted the permission for posting the article here. This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/microbio_facpub/34 Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), 1707–1778 The Swede who named almost everything Charles T. Ambrose, MD 4 Books andThe fish Pharosprint in the/Spring library 2010 of Carl Linnaeus.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytodynamics and Plant Difference Gunalan Nadarajan
    Phytodynamics and Plant Difference Gunalan Nadarajan (published in special edition, Technology and Difference, of Leonardo Electronic Almanac, Vol 10, Nov 2003; International Society for Art, Science and Technology / MIT Press) “Common suddenly felt the firm tug of gravity. He felt glued to the spot, as if attached there. He was attached. Looking down, he was dismayed to find his feet lodged firmly in the ground – and himself a plant! Transformed into something soft and thin, greenish brown, neither tree nor grass.” (Abe, 1992:44) What is a plant? A plant is generally regarded as a biological entity that is rooted to a particular location – an interesting coincidence of etymology and existential condition. Tugged by gravity from below and sunlight from above, being fixed to a particular place and environmental conditions that it is unable to choose or change by way of subsequent physical relocation, the plant seems like an excellent exemplar of adaptation – it has to learn to adapt to and/or manage the conditions as are rather than exercise the relatively simpler option of migration available to the more mobile animals. Its immobility is very often conceived to be the reason for its incapacity, and some like Aristotle argue, lack of necessity, to develop a complicated response system given the relative paucity of surprise and novelty in its immediate environment. However, these notions of immobility and a supposed lack of sensitivity have come to be attributed as natural to and constitutive characteristics of plants have been culturally constructed. This means that what one assumes to be essential and necessary qualities that differentiate the plant from other biological and non-organic matter alike, are merely qualities that they have come to be associated with thus far and which thus do not form exhaustive descriptions of what constitutes the plant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between a Plant and Its Place in Sixteenth
    Gardens & Landscapes ‘Where have all the flowers grown’: the relationship between a plant and its place in sixteenth-century botanical treatises Lucie Čermáková DOI 10.2478/glp-2019-0010 Gardens and Landscapes, Sciendo, nr 6 (2019), pp. 20-36. URL: https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/glp/glp-overview.xml ABSTRACT The article investigates Renaissance naturalists’ views on the links between plants and places where they grow. It looks at the Renaissance culture of botanical excursions and observation of plants in their natural environment and analyses the methods Renaissance naturalists used to describe relations between plants and their habitat, the influence of location on plants’ substantial and accidental characteristics, and in defining species. I worked mostly with printed sixteenth-century botanical sources and paid special attention to the work of Italian naturalist Giam- battista Della Porta (1535–1615), whose thoughts on the relationship between plants and places are original, yet little known. Keywords: History of Botany, History of Ecology, History of Empiricism, Giambattista Della Porta ARTICLE Introduction: Context Matters In the context of emergence of modern botany, some historians speak of a ‘decontextualization’ of plants. In the sixteenth century, we witness the development of new practices and methodological approaches which took plants out of their natural environment and placed them in new contexts. Plants were transplanted, pulled out, and dried to be measured and compared (JACOBS 1980; ATRAN 1990: 134; OGILVIE 1996: 222). But that is only part of the story of flourishing specialised interest in plants in the sixteenth century. Andrea Ubrizsy Savoia recently drew attention to the fact that Renaissance scholars were also interested in the relationship between plants and their environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Milestones in History of Science About 10,000 Bce, Wolves Were Probably Domesticated
    Some Milestones in History of Science About 10,000 bce, wolves were probably domesticated. By 9000 bce, sheep were probably domesticated in the Middle East. About 7000 bce, there was probably an hallucinagenic mushroom, or 'soma,' cult in the Tassili-n- Ajjer Plateau in the Sahara (McKenna 1992:98-137). By 7000 bce, wheat was domesticated in Mesopotamia. The intoxicating effect of leaven on cereal dough and of warm places on sweet fruits and honey was noticed before men could write. By 6500 bce, goats were domesticated. "These herd animals only gradually revealed their full utility-- sheep developing their woolly fleece over time during the Neolithic, and goats and cows awaiting the spread of lactose tolerance among adult humans and the invention of more digestible dairy products like yogurt and cheese" (O'Connell 2002:19). Between 6250 and 5400 bce at Çatal Hüyük, Turkey, maces, weapons used exclusively against human beings, were being assembled. Also, found were baked clay sling balls, likely a shepherd's weapon of choice (O'Connell 2002:25). About 5500 bce, there was a "sudden proliferation of walled communities" (O'Connell 2002:27). About 4800 bce, there is evidence of astronomical calendar stones on the Nabta plateau, near the Sudanese border in Egypt. A parade of six megaliths mark the position where Sirius, the bright 'Morning Star,' would have risen at the spring solstice. Nearby are other aligned megaliths and a stone circle, perhaps from somewhat later. About 4000 bce, horses were being ridden on the Eurasian steppe by the people of the Sredni Stog culture (Anthony et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Management of Plant Taxonomy: a Legal Narrative Analysis
    KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT OF PLANT TAXONOMY: A LEGAL NARRATIVE ANALYSIS Sir David Attenborough’s name was imparted to an ancient Burmese damsel- fly that lived 100 million years before his time. The objective of this paper is to find out why official scientists apply such famous foreign names in traditional locales. Indigenous farmers’ rights lacked any such significant father figure. The UPOV model statute for Plant Breeders’ rights appears to have overwhelmed farmers’ rights. The question is why the internationally organized Plant Breeders’ Acts appear to have overridden the local farmers’ rights. We propose that names, such as Attenborough’s, were used to create so much international monetary value to a plant, using a kind of deifying process, that any local statutory rights appended to that name would have the paramount force of something resembling imperial law. The famed and ennobled European naturalist Linnaeus occupied an essentially deified rank as the dispenser of pragmatic solutions to official botanists’ legalistic problems, even in far-flung local areas. He made new imperial laws of plant taxonomy, effectively overriding local farmers’ rights, and influencing later worldwide statutory plant breeders' rights laws. I. INTRODUCTION The world-famous Sir David Attenborough (Sir David) was recently imparted to an ancient damsel-fly, paradoxically, that lived 100 million years before Sir David's time. Now named Mesosticta davidattenboroughi using the Linnaean system of organism denomination, scientists discovered the Damselfly in Burma's Kachin Province, preserved in amber from the mid- Cretaceous period of the dinosaurs.1 Thus, the objective of this article is to find out why scientists use such famous foreign names in traditional locales.
    [Show full text]