Is there a place for plant morphology in the contemporary research?

  • Tetiana Pochynok Ivan Franko Lviv National University, Hrushevsky Str., 4, Lviv, 79005
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.162422

Abstract

The change of early plant morphologists’ thoughts is shortly summarized in the paper. The establishment of this discipline was taking place under influence of scientists’ views, thoughts and knowledge in combination with social life and beliefs. Some scientists tried to set margins all the time limiting morphology from other disciplines; others were widening its horizons due to interaction with different studies and application of new methods. Nowadays, it happens to hear that morphological data is less important than molecular. Though, morphology always served as a base for taxonomy in species determination and it still maintains its significance in the lineages reconstruction. Studying the morphological aspects of plant structure and function, one should keep in mind that he is dealing with a whole plant organism.

References

Donoghue M.J. & Kadereit J.W. 1992. Walter Zimmermann and the growth of phylogenetic theory. Syst. Biol. 41 (1): 74–85.
Junker T. 2004. Diezweite Darwinsche Revolution: Geschichte des Synthetischen Darwinismus in Deutschland 1924 bis 1950. Basilisken-Presse, Marburg.
Kaplan D.R. 2001. The science of plant morphology: definition, history, and role in modern biology. Am. J. Bot. 88 (10): 1711–1741.
Kaplan D.R. & Hagemann W. 1991. The relationship of cell and organism in vascular plants. BioScience 41: 693–703.
Lang W.H. 1915. Plant morphology. Science, New Series 42 (1092): 780–791.
Maillette L. 1992. Seasonal model of modular growth in plants. J. Ecol. 80: 123–130.
Mitka J. 2004. Linnaean taxonomy in the age of molecular biology. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. Supplementum 6: 9–31.
Nickel G. 1996. Wilhelm Troll (1897–1978): Eine Biographie. Acta Historica Leopoldina 25: 1–240.
Savinykh N.P. 2008. Application of modular organization conception in plant structure description. Contemporary approaches for plant structure description: 47–69. Kirov.
Schneider H., Smith A.R., Pryer K.M. 2009. Is morphology really at odds with molecules in estimating fern phylogeny? Syst. Bot. 34 (3): 455–475.
Sneath P.H. & Sokal R.R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification. Freeman, San Francisco.
Goebel K. 1905. The fundamental problems of present-day plant morphology. Science, New Series 22 (550): 33–45.
No original images
Published
2012-04-01
How to Cite
POCHYNOK, Tetiana. Is there a place for plant morphology in the contemporary research?. Modern Phytomorphology, [S.l.], v. 2, p. 13-16, apr. 2012. ISSN 2227-9555. Available at: <http://ojs.phytomorphology.org/index.php/MP/article/view/368>. Date accessed: 11 apr. 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.162422.
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol 2 (2012)
Section
Review Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The journal is licensed by Creative Commons under BY-NC-ND license. You are welcome and free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) all the published materials. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. You must give appropriate credit to all published materials.

The journal allow the author(s) to hold the copyrights and to retain publishing rights without any restrictions. This is also indicated at the bottom of each article.