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