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-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:01:48.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Plants are used to having identity crises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2009

Giuseppe Fusco
By
Rolf Rutishauser ,
Valentin Grob  and
Evelin Pfeifer
Edited by
Alessandro Minelli
Giuseppe Fusco
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy
Alessandro Minelli
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy
Get access

Summary

Macroscopic nature is never really anomalous. Abnormalities, like other exceptional cases, at least show incontestably, what the plants can do.

Arber 1950: 6

However, regardless of how much faith one has in anatomical definitions, they should not be taken as more than a means of communication prior to subsequent genetic analysis.

Scheres et al. 1996: 963

Truth, except as a figure of speech, does not exist in empirical science.

Brower 2000: 18

INTRODUCTION

Our green and living world is a continuum in space and time. This view is well expressed in the ‘continuum model’ proposed by botanists and biophilosophers such as Arber (1950) and Sattler (1996). As an opposite view we may accept the green world around us as consisting of discrete units on several hierarchical levels. This view is called here the ‘discontinuum model’ or the ‘classical model’ because it has been the predominant view in biological textbooks for decades. Branching and repetition of developmental units (e.g. cells, meristems, modules, leaves, phytomers) are omnipresent as developmental processes in multicellular plants. These processes resemble the process of segmentation in various metazoan phyla, also occasionally leading to fuzzy borderlines between consecutive developmental units (Minelli and Fusco 2004, Prusinkiewicz 2004, Rutishauser and Moline 2005). Perspectivists studying plants accept structural and developmental categories such as cells, meristems, modules, leaves and phytomers as mind-born, simplified concepts reflecting certain aspects of the structural diversity (Sattler and Rutishauser 1990, Hay and Mabberley 1994).

Type
Chapter
Information
Evolving Pathways
Key Themes in Evolutionary Developmental Biology
 , pp. 194 - 214
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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.)

References

Arber, A. 1947. Analogy in the history of science. In Montagu, M. F. Ashley (ed.) Studies and Essays in the History of Science and Learning, Offered in Homage to G. Sarton. New York: Henry Schuman, pp. 221–233.Google Scholar
Arber, A. 1950. The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baluska, F., Volkmann, D. & Barlow, P. W. 2004. Cell bodies in a cage. Nature 428, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, P. W., Lück, H. B. & Lück, J. 2001. The natural philosophy of plant form: cellular autoreproduction as a component of a structural explanation of plant form. Annals of Botany 88, 1141–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, D. A. & Donoghue, M. J. 2002. Transference of function, heterotopy and the evolution of plant development. In Cronk, Q. C. B., Bateman, R. M. & Hawkins, J. A. (eds.) Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 52–69.Google Scholar
Bey, M., Stüber, K., Fellenberg, K.et al. 2004. Characterization of Antirrhinum petal development and identification of target genes of the class B MADS box gene DEFICIENS. Plant Cell 16, 3197–3215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bharathan, G., Goliber, T. E., Moore, C.et al. 2002. Homologies in leaf form inferred from KNOX1 gene expression during development. Science 296, 1858–1860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birnbaum, K. & Benfey, P. N. 2004. Network building: transcriptional circuits in the root. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 7, 582–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blochlinger, K., Jan, L. Y. & Jan, Y. N. 1991. Transformation of sensory organ identity by ectopic expression of Cut in Drosophila. Genes & Development 5, 1124–1135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, G. R. & Cardew, G. (eds.) 1999. Homology (Novartis Foundation Symposium 222). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, A. V. Z. 2000. Homology and the inference of systematic relationships: some historical and philosophical perspectives. In Scotland, R. & Pennington, R. T. (eds.) Homology and Systematics. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 10–21.Google Scholar
Byrne, M. E., Kidner, C. A. & Martienssen, R. A. 2003. Plant stem cells: divergent pathways and common themes in shoots and roots. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 13, 551–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlton, W. A. 1991. Homoeosis and shoot construction in Azara microphylla Hook. (Flacourtiaceae). Acta Botanica Neerlandica 40, 329–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coen, E. 1999. The Art of Genes: How Organisms Make Themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cronk, Q. C. B. 2001. Plant evolution and development in a post-genomic context. Nature Reviews Genetics 2, 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elledge, S. J. 1996. Cell cycle checkpoints: preventing an identity crisis. Science 274, 1664–1672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endress, P. K. 2006. Angiosperm floral evolution: morphological developmental framework. Advances in Botanical Research 44, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. B. 2002. Indeterminate leaves of Chisocheton (Meliaceae): survey of structure and development. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 139, 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, W. E., Moore, R. C. & Purugganan, M. D. 2004. The evolution of plant development. American Journal of Botany 91, 1726–1741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukuda, T., Yokoyama, J. & Tsukaya, H. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among species in the genera Chisocheton and Guarea that have unique indeterminate leaves as inferred from sequences of chloroplast DNA. International Journal of Plant Science 164, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallois, J.-L., Nora, F. R., Mizukami, Y. & Sablowski, R. 2004. WUSCHEL induces shoot stem cell activity and developmental plasticity in the root meristem. Genes & Development 18, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geuten, K., Becker, A., Kaufmann, K.et al. 2006. A petal identity crisis – MADS-domain proteins and the evolution of petaloidy in balsaminoid Ericales. First Meeting of the European Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Prague. Abstracts, pp. 102–103.Google Scholar
Grob, V., Moline, P., Pfeifer, E., Novelo, A. R. & Rutishauser, R. 2006. Developmental morphology of branching flowers in Nymphaea prolifera. Journal of Plant Research 119, 561–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, J. A. 2002. Evolutionary developmental biology: impact on systematic theory and practice, and the contribution of systematics. In Cronk, Q. C. B., Bateman, R. M. & Hawkins, J. A. (eds.) Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 32–51.Google Scholar
Hay, A. & Mabberley, D. J. 1994. On perception of plant morphology: some implications for phylogeny. In Ingram, D. S. & Hudson, A. (eds.) Shape and Form in Plants and Fungi. London: The Linnean Society of London, pp. 101–117.Google Scholar
Hofer, J. M. I., Gourlay, C. W. & Ellis, T. H. N. 2001. Genetic control of leaf morphology: a partial view. Annals of Botany 88, 1129–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. 1996. Plant morphogenesis: designing leaves. Current Biology 6, 917–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaramillo, M. A. & Kramer, E. M. 2007. The role of developmental genetics in understanding homology and morphological evolution in plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences 168, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchoff, B. K. 1991. Homeosis in the flowers of the Zingiberales. American Journal of Botany 64, 833–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koi, S. & Kato, M. 2003. Comparative developmental anatomy of the root in three species of Cladopus (Podostemaceae). Annals of Botany 91, 927–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacroix, C., Jeune, B. & Purcell-Macdonald, S. 2003. Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 143, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugassi, N., Nakayama, N., Irish, V. F. & Zik, M. 2006. Identity crisis: a novel floral organ mutant. XV Congress of the Federation of European Societies of Plant Biology, Lyon. Abstracts, DEVO1–014.Google Scholar
Marx, G. A. 1987. A suite of mutants that modify pattern formation in pea leaves. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 5, 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minelli, A. 1998. Molecules, developmental modules and phenotypes: a combinatorial approach to homology. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9, 340–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minelli, A. & Fusco, G. 2004. Evo-devo perspectives on segmentation: model organisms, and beyond. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, 423–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagasawa, N., Miyoshi, M., Sano, Y.et al. 2003. SUPERWOMAN1 and DROOPING LEAF leaf genes control floral organ identity in rice. Development 130, 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ota, M., Imaichi, R. & Kato, M. 2001. Developmental morphology of the thalloid Hydrobryum japonicum (Podostemaceae). American Journal of Botany 88, 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parcy, F., Nilsson, O., Busch, M. A., Lee, I. & Weigel, D. 1998. A genetic framework for floral patterning. Nature 395, 561–566.Google ScholarPubMed
Prusinkiewicz, P. 2004. Self-similarity in plants: integrating mathematical and biological perspectives. In Novak, M. (ed.) Thinking in Patterns. Fractals and Related Phenomena in Nature. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 103–118.Google Scholar
Raven, J. A. & Edwards, D. 2001. Roots: evolutionary origins and biogeochemical significance. Journal of Experimental Botany 52, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiser, L., Sánchez-Baracaldo, P. & Kake, S. 2000. Knots in the family tree: evolutionary relationships and functions of knox homeobox genes. Plant Molecular Biology 42, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutishauser, R. 1995. Developmental patterns of leaves in Podostemaceae as compared to more typical flowering plants: saltational evolution and fuzzy morphology. Canadian Journal of Botany 73, 1305–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutishauser, R. 1999. Polymerous leaf whorls in vascular plants: developmental morphology and fuzziness of organ identity. International Journal of Plant Science 160, S81–S103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutishauser, R. & Isler, B. 2001. Fuzzy Arberian Morphology: Utricularia, developmental mosaics, partial shoot hypothesis of the leaf and other FAMous ideas of Agnes Arber (1879–1960) on vascular plant bauplans. Annals of Botany 88, 1173–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutishauser, R. & Moline, P. 2005. Evo-devo and the search for homology (“sameness”) in biological systems. Theory in Biosciences 124, 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutishauser, R. & Sattler, R. 1986. Architecture and development of the phyllode-stipules whorls in Acacia longipedunculata: controversial interpretations and continuum approach. Canadian Journal of Botany 64, 1987–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattler, R. 1994. Homology, homeosis, and process morphology in plants. In Hall, B. K. (ed.) The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 423–475.Google Scholar
Sattler, R. 1996. Classical morphology and continuum morphology: opposition and continuum. Annals of Botany 78, 577–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattler, R. 2001. Some comments on the morphological, scientific, philosophical and spiritual significance of Agnes Arber's life and work. Annals of Botany 88, 1215–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattler, R. & Jeune, B. 1992. Multivariate analysis confirms the continuum view of plant form. Annals of Botany 69, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattler, R. & Rutishauser, R. 1990. Structural and dynamic descriptions of the development of Utricularia foliosa and U. australis. Canadian Journal of Botany 68, 1989–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheres, B. 2001. Plant cell identity. The role of position and lineage. Plant Physiology 125, 112–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheres, B., McKhann, H. I. & Berg, C. 1996. Roots redefined: anatomical and genetic analysis of root development. Plant Physiology 111, 959–964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schichnes, D., Schneeberger, R. & Freeling, M. 1997. Induction of leaves directly from leaves in the maize mutant Lax midrib I-zero. Developmental Biology 186, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, H., Pryer, K. M., Cranfill, R., Smith, A. R. & Wolf, P. G. 2002. Evolution of vascular plant body plans: a phylogenetic perspective. In Cronk, Q. C. B., Bateman, R. M., Hawkins, J. A. (eds.) Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Sehgal, A., Sethi, M. & Mohan Ram, H. Y. 2002. Origin, structure, and interpretation of the thallus in Hydrobryopsis sessilis (Podostemaceae). International Journal of Plant Science 163, 891–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shubin, N., Tabin, C. & Carroll, S. 1997. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388, 639–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinha, N. R. 1999. Leaf development in angiosperms. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 50, 419–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soltis, D. E., Albert, V. A., Kim, S. et al. 2005. Evolution of the flower. In Henry, R. J. (ed.) Plant Diversity and Evolution: Genotypic and Phenotypic Variation in Higher Plants. Cambridge, MA: CAB International, pp. 165–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, Y. & Simon, R. 2005. Plant stem cell niches. International Journal of Developmental Biology 49, 479–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steeves, T. A., Hicks, G., Steeves, M. & Retallack, B. 1993. Leaf determination in the fern Osmunda cinnamomea: a reinvestigation. Annals of Botany 71, 511–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, M. E. 2004. Homology and homocracy revisited: gene expression patterns and hypotheses of homology. Development Genes & Evolution 214, 418–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sylvester, A. W., Smith, L., & Freeling, M. 1996. Acquisition of identity in the developing leaf. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 12, 257–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tattersall, A. D., Turner, L., Knox, M. R.et al. 2005. The mutant crispa reveals multiple roles for PHANTASTICA in pea compound leaf development. The Plant Cell 17, 1046–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theissen, G. 2000. Plant Breeding: Flo-like meristem identity genes: from basic science to crop plant design. Progress in Botany 61, 167–183.Google Scholar
Theissen, G. 2005. Birth, life and death of developmental control genes: new challenges for the homology concept. Theory in Biosciences 124, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsukaya, H. 1995. Developmental genetics of leaf morphogenesis in dicotyledonous plants. Journal of Plant Research 108, 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsukaya, H. 2002. Interpretation of mutants in leaf morphology: genetic evidence for a compensatory system in leaf morphogenesis that provides a new link between cell and organismal theories. International Review of Cytology 217, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vergara-Silva, F. 2003. Plants and the conceptual articulation of evolutionary developmental biology. Biology and Philosophy 18, 249–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker-Larsen, J. & Harder, L. D. 2000. The evolution of staminodes in angiosperms: patterns of stamen reduction, loss, and functional re-invention. American Journal of Botany 87, 1367–1384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams-Carrier, R. E., Lie, Y. S., Hake, S. & Lemaux, P. G. 1997. Ectopic expression of the maize kn1 gene phenocopies the Hooded mutant of barley. Development 124, 3737–3745.Google ScholarPubMed
Xu, J., Hofhuis, H., Heidstra, R.et al. 2006. A molecular framework for plant regeneration. Science 311, 385–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yagil, E. & Stebbins, G. L. 1969. The morphogenetic effects of the hooded gene in barley. II. Cytological and environmental factors affecting gene expression. Genetics 62, 307–319.Google ScholarPubMed
Yaxley, J. L., Jablonski, W. & Reid, J. B. 2001. Leaf and flower development in pea (Pisum sativum L.): Mutants cochleata and unifoliata. Annals of Botany 88, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, D., Kotilainen, M., Pöllänen, E.et al. 1999. Organ identity genes and modified patterns of flower development in Gerbera hybrida. Plant Journal 17, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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
×