Articulation Morphology of Plants and Plant Evo-Devo: A process-oriented, unified approach based on open growth, ramification and articulation, inspired by the theory of anaphytes (anaphytosis)
Rolf Sattler
Latest update on September 22, 2025
Abstract
According to the theory of anaphytes (anaphytosis), first proposed in 1843, in the open growth of plants, ramification is the key principle in plant morphology. It engenders articulation: the formation of articles, called anaphytes. While the original theory of anaphytes included tenets that are now considered outdated, Articulation Morphology, proposed here as a modern version of this theory, focuses solely on ramification and articulation. In this view, plants are articulated wholes: systems of articles formed through ramification. These articles are understood as process combinations according to process morphology. For practical purposes, they may also be identified with traditional structural terms such as root, stem, leaf, or leaflet. However, articulation morphology relies only on the observation of ramifications and the resulting articulations. In this sense, it is strictly empirical. It does not depend on a morphological theory such as the classical root-stem-leaf theory of mainstream morphology, which often fails to accommodate atypical or deviant structures. In contrast, articulation morphology is all-encompassing: even the most deviant structures can be understood as deviant patterns of ramification and articulation. From this perspective, plant evo-devo becomes the investigation of the development and evolution of ramification and articulation.
The Theory of Anaphytes (Anaphytosis) and Articulation Morphology
Classical morphology remains predominant in mainstream plant morphology (Kaplan 2022, Sattler 2022), although it has been surpassed (e,g., Sattler 1994, Rutishauser 2020, Classen-Bockhoff 2024). According to classical morphology, plants such as flowering plants consist of three kinds of organs: root, stem (caulome), and leaf (phyllome) (Braun 1851, Troll 1954, Kaplan 2022). Thus, any organ we encounter must be either a root, a stem (caulome), or a leaf (phyllome). However, some structures deviate so much from the common pattern that they cannot be clearly assigned to any one of the three kinds of organs (Rutishauser 2016, 2020, Rutishauser et al. 2008, Sattler and Rutishauser 2023, Classen-Bockhoff 2024). As a result, endless debates have persisted and continue to arise about the assignment of these controversial organs. These controversies remain unresolved because they appear to be pseudo-problems: attempts to categorize structures that do not fit the categories.
In the theory of anaphytes (anaphytosis), which was developed by C. H. Schultz, who is also known as Schultz-Schultzenstein, such pseudo-problems do not arise (Schultz 1943, Schultz-Schultzenstein 1867). According to this theory, plant morphology is the result of two fundamental processes: ramification (branching) and articulation. These two processes are observable. We can observe that during the development of plants, ramification occurs, which leads to articulation: the formation of articles, called anaphytes, after each ramification and between successive ramifications. For example, a simple leaf is an article that does not undergo further ramification, and an internode is an article between successive ramifications. The process of the continued formation of anaphytes is called anaphytosis. Hence, Schultz-Schultzenstein named his theory anaphytosis. Like other authors, I refer to it more simply as the theory of anaphytes. Besides the fundamental processes of ramification and articulation, Schultz (1843) included theoretical claims in his theory of anaphytes that now appear outdated. He regarded anaphytes as individuals that can form a whole plant. I do not endorse this claim and other theoretical components of his theory. I endorse only its factual basis of ramification and articulation.
Organisms can be partitioned into different kinds of parts (Winther 2011). As I shall elaborate below, plants can be partitioned into organs or articles (anaphytes). Organs are partitioned, if not through questionable non-observable boundaries, at least through a morphological theory such as the classical root-stem-leaf theory, whereas articles are distinguished on the basis of the observable process of ramification. The organ-based approach of mainstream classical morphology has been solidified by the prevalent idea that plants consist of three fundamental organs (“Grundorgane” in German), as promoted by Troll, the influential German morphologist (Troll 1937-1943, 1954) and Kaplan, the influential American morphologist, who, like most mainstream morphologists, adopted Troll’s categorical framework (Kaplan 2022, Sattler 2022). In contrast to the organ-based approach of mainstream morphology, according to articulation morphology - a modern version of the theory of anaphytes that I am proposing here - plants are articulated (or segmented) wholes: systems of articles generated by open growth, which leads to ramification and articulation: the formation of an article from each ramification and between successive ramifications. Thus, open growth, ramification, and the formation of articles constitute the most fundamental processes in plant morphology and plant evo-devo. Instead of 'articles,' one could refer to segments, structural units, or simply structures defined by ramification and differentiated in many ways. These include thallus segments, telomes, roots, segregation products of the SAM, arising from lateral and axillary meristems, fractionation products of the RAM (reproductive apical meristem), and rare structures such as the fronds of the Lemnaceae and haustoria (see below).
Morphology based on ramification could be called ramification morphology and morphology based on articulation, articulation morphology. I prefer the latter because it emphasizes more strongly the difference to mainstream morphology, which also addresses ramification but often in a more restrictive way concerning the formation of branches such as axillary branches. In contrast, the process of ramification in articulation morphology refers to the formation of new primordia regardless of which articles they produce. Hence, in articulation morphology, ramification is used in a much broader and more fundamental sense than in mainstream morphology. This approach recognizes that structures such as compound leaves, stamens and carpels are also ramified.
Instead of articulation morphology, we could refer to open morphology, based on open growth, which leads to ramification and articulation. Open Morphology can also be seen as being open toward other complementary approaches to morphology (see below).
As mentioned already, one difference between the organs of mainstream morphology and the articles of articulation morphology is that the latter is based on the observable process of ramification, whereas the former is based on a morphological theory and often relies on demarcations that are questionable because there are no clear-cut boundaries between organs, which are understood as morphological body parts (Minelli 2021). By drawing boundaries differently, five different models of plant construction have been created (see Rutishauser and Sattler 1985, pp. 420-424, Classsen-Bockhoff 2024, pp. 487-489, Fig. 8.2). While these models complement one another, they are all based on boundaries that do not exist in nature. The shoot and the whole plant is a continuum. Within this continuum, Howard (1976) highlighted the stem-node-leaf continuum. This continuum is acknowledged in the model that subdivides the plant into phytomers, which are also called modules (White 1979, Classen-Bockhoff 2024, p. 352), but phytomers, consisting of a node, the internode below, the leaf, the axillary bud and even roots if they are present, create a discontinuum in the stem from one internode to another. This discontinuum is avoided in the traditional root-stem-leaf model by acknowledging the continuity of the stem, but it draws a boundary between the stem and the leaf. Other models of the shoot, while emphasizing a continuum in one way, have created demarcations in another way. In contrast, articulation morphology is not based on organs with disputed boundaries; it is based on articles - units that emerge through the observable process of ramification. These articles are not based on a demarcation through boundaries because we observe that ramification occurs through the formation of a new growth centre (primordium), which at its base is continuous with the article on which it is formed. As this new primordium develops into a new article it acquires distinct properties and through these properties – not through a non-existent boundary – it becomes distinguishable from the article on which it arises. Hence, the distinction of articles does not rely on boundaries: we can indeed distinguish articles without drawing boundaries. If the newly-formed article does not ramify, it remains a single article. If it does, the segment between successive ramifications constitutes an article.
Even between organs no boundary can be observed. Yet in mainstream morphology a boundary is often assumed, but some mainstream morphologists acknowledge the non-existence of boundaries. Kaplan wrote: “The vagaries of defining the boundaries between stem and leaf components of the shoot underscore the fundamental developmental unity of these two elements and the artificiality of attempting to draw a rigid boundary between them” (Kaplan 2022, p. 5). Nonetheless, Kaplan insists that the shoot "consists of two major components: leaves and stem" (ibid., p. 4) and that "a flower is a reproductive short shoot bearing microsporophylls (stamens) … and megasporophylls (carpels) as its appendages or leaf homologues" (ibid., p. 1069). Thus, even if the attempt to draw boundaries is given up, a crucial difference between organ-based mainstream morphology and articulation morphology remains: organs are defined in terms of a morphological theory such as the classical root-stem-leaf model, whereas articulation morphology does not imply a morphological theory. It is solely based on the observable processes of ramification and articulation, independent of any morphological theory. Hence, it is not faced with the pseudo-problems of a morphological theory such as the classical theory that cannot deal with structures that do not fit into its categorical framework. And since it does not require drawing boundaries that do not exist in nature, it surpasses the complementarity of the five shoot models that are based on different, complementary boundaries.
Furthermore, in articulation morphology - which could also be called segmentation morphology - the central and most basic concept is no longer morphological homology but transformation: the transformation of ramification and articulation. This changes the most basic questions we ask. Instead of asking questions about morphological homology, we ask how patterns of ramification and articulation have changed during development and evolution. For this reason, the new approach of articulation morphology may be considered a new paradigm of plant morphology. It changes fundamentally our way of thinking about morphology and consequently morphological investigation. As an example, consider compound leaves. In articulation morphology, the primary question is no longer whether they are homologous to simple leaves or partial shoots. Instead, we focus on the transformation of development (ontogeny) that occurred during evolution and we find that compared to simple leaves, compound leaves acquired additional ramifications and articulations (for more examples, see below).
Transformation does not mean that articles are actually transformed into others. It means that during development (ontogeny) and evolution (phylogeny) articles are added, eliminated, or replaced by others. In general, it means that the development of plants (their ontogeny) evolved. To investigate this transformation of development (ontogeny), we do not need homology. Articulation morphology investigates transformation directly without the interference of morphological homology and the associated morphological categories. Different articles are not assigned to the morphological categories because categories such as those of classical morphology are not assumed in articulation morphology. Therefore, the problem or pseudo-problem of the assignment of controversial structures does not exist in articulation morphology. However, if one wants to make comparisons between articles it may be done using fuzzy set theory, where differences range from 0% toward 100%. 0% means no difference, hence sameness. If one does not or cannot quantify the difference, one can refer to “more or less different,” or “more or less similar.” One could interpret the difference or similarity as the homology of articles, ranging from total to partial or combinatorial homology (Sattler 1994, Minelli 2016, 2023). However, as noted above, the primary aim of articulation morphology is not morphological homology but transformation. Fossils, biography, ecology and developmental genetics may provide data that help to determine the direction of transformation during evolution. Other types of homology – beyond the morphological – may also play a role in the elucidation of evolution (Minelli 2018, Ochoterena et al. 2019).
How do we describe articles? I propose to describe articles as process combinations according to process morphology (Sattler 1990, 1992). This includes processes such as growth duration and growth distribution resulting in radial and dorsiventral growth. Articles may differ with regard to growth duration, and they may arise as radial or dorsiventral primordia. In the latter case, they may be oriented in the same plane as the article on which they are formed or in a transversal plane, that is, in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the article on which they are born. For example, teeth in serrated leaves arise in the plane of the leaf, whereas leaflets may be formed in a plane perpendicular to that of the leaf (Arber 1950, p. 116, Rutishauser and Sattler 1997).
For the convenience of communication, familiar terms may be used for the process combinations and new terms may be invented. For example, the process combinations that constitute what we call a simple leaf may be referred to as a simple leaf as long as we keep in mind that a leaf is not just a structure but a process combination. Other terms of mainstream morphology such as root and internode may also be used, and thus a limited continuity between mainstream morphology and articulation morphology is possible.
However, the difference between mainstream morphology and articulation morphology is more fundamental than might initially seem. Whereas some articles correspond to organs of mainstream morphology, others do not. For example, a simple leaf, an internode, or a root is equivalent to an article as they result from just one ramification. However, a pinnate leaf, which is considered one organ according to mainstream morphology, is a system of articles. For flowers, the difference between mainstream morphology and articulation morphology is even more striking. Stamens are a system of articles as are carpels. They are not leaf homologues, since leaf homologues are not defined in terms of ramification and articulation. Classen-Bockhoff (2016, 2024) referred to them as sporangiophores. Sporangiophores are systems of ramification and articulation, which are processes that can be directly observed. Even a layperson can observe where a ramification occurs and the article that has been produced as a result of this ramification.
Since ramification is fundamental to articulation morphology we have to distinguish different modes of ramification: dichotomous, lateral, and axillary ramification. Dichotomous ramification is common in liverworts such as Marchantia and the earliest telomic fossils such as Rhynia and Cooksonia. Whereas the articles produced in liverworts are dorsiventral, the articles in the earliest telomic fossils are mostly of radial symmetry, but a continuum from radial to dorsiventral symmetry has been documented (Sattler 1998). In the telomic fossils it is most obvious that they consist of articles. An article that is the result of two successive ramifications is called a mesome, whereas an article after a single ramification that does not ramify further is called a telome. Both mesomes and telomes are telomes in the broadest sense. Thus, a telomic fossil is a telome truss that consists of telomes in the broadest sense. It consists only of telomes (articles), not organs. According to the telome theory (Zimmermann 1952, 1959, 1965), the diversity of vascular plants has evolved through elementary processes. These processes produced different patterns of ramification and articulation. The elementary process of overtopping leads from dichotomous to lateral ramification. The elementary process of planation describes the change from three-dimensional to two-dimensional ramification. The elementary process of fusion has been implied in leaf formation, which has led to criticism (Stein and Boyer 2006, Beerling and Fleming 2007). However, Zimmermann himself (1959, p. 105, 1961) pointed out already that “fusion” should be understood as a basipetal shift of growth. In addition, intercalary meristems leading to zonal growth play an important role, especially in flowers. For example, inferior ovaries are formed through intercalary growth. Interprimordial growth leads to a common base of primordia (often described as a “fusion”), for example, in the formation of a sympetalous corolla (Sattler 1078).
The telome theory is more limited than articulation morphology because it does not address plant structures such as enations, leaves of bryophytes and algae. Its applicability is further constrained because it is difficult or impossible to apply it to more highly evolved vascular plants such as seed plants in which individual telomes are usually no longer recognizable. Nevertheless, to the extent that the telome theory does explain the diversity of vascular plants, it corresponds to articulation morphology because telomes are articles, not organs.
Whereas dichotomous ramification is rare in vascular plants, lateral ramification is the most common type. Additionally, axillary ramification is characteristic of seed plants. Acknowledging this, Sachs (1882) proposed a schematic ground plan of seed plants, which was adopted by classical morphologists such as Troll (1954) and Kaplan (2022). It comprises a root system and a shoot system with a stem, leaves, and axillary buds. Hence, it represents the trinity of the classical categories: root, stem (caulome), and leaf (phyllome). Although meant for all seed plants, it applies only to a limited extent in the vegetative region for plants with simple leaves, each of which corresponds to an article.
For a more complete description of ramifications, the spatial arrangement of articles has to be taken into account. If we refer to phyllotaxy in articulation morphology, this notion must be understood in a wider sense: not only as the formation of leaves on the shoot apical meristem (SAM) but as the formation of articles. These articles may arise sequentially (as in spiral phyllotaxy) or simultaneously (as in whorled and decussate phyllotaxy). Deviations from these patterns occur, especially in flowers.
There appears to be a continuum from leaves to leaflets, stipules, enations, and hairs (Rutishauser and Isler 2001, Fig. 39, Rutishauser and Sattler 1986, Arber 1950, p.141). Thus, articles comprise the whole continuum from organs to enations and hairs. Since hairs are often formed much later than organs, we may distinguish two phases of ramification: a first phase, often referred to as organogenesis, and a second phase of hair formation, but the two phases may overlap.
Any particular plant or group of plants may be described by its peculiar sequence of ramifications and the resulting articulations. Thus, articulation morphology, based on open growth, encompasses the whole life cycle of plants. In seed plants, the embryo is typically bipolar, differentiating into two opposite poles: the root pole and the shoot pole (for exceptions see Claβen-Bockhoff 2024, pp. 599-600). Through ramification and articulation, the root pole forms side roots. One, two, or more cotyledons (articles) arise even before the formation of the shoot pole. As a result, the hypocotyl (representing one article), is formed between the cotyledon(s) and the first side root. It unifies the two poles, creating oneness in duality. The shoot pole develops into the shoot apical meristem (SAM). As it ramifies through lateral and axillary meristems, it also forms internodes, each representing one article. Lateral meristems usually develop into simple leaves (consisting of one article) or compound leaves (made up of a system of aricles), but ocassionally uncommon structures (representing one or more articles) occur (see below). Axillary meristems normally produce a side branch, generated by a new SAM. Ocassionally also other structures such as phylloclades (consisting of one or more articles) occur in the axillary position and rarely even the SAM may become transformed into a phylloclade (see below). In addition, common (typical) as well as uncommon (atypical) structures (made up of one or more articles) may arise in various deviant positions. For example, typical roots may be formed on the hypocotyl and highly deviant structures such as haustoria may develop on roots, stems, and leaves (Claβen-Bockhoff, 2014, pp. 641-647). As in Daoism the Yin comprises the Yang and vice versa, so the root retains the potential to develop shoots and the shoot may form roots.
In angiosperms, the SAM eventually becomes transformed into an inflorescence meristem, or sometimes into a floral unit-meristem, or directly into a floral meristem (Claβen-Bockhoff 2024). Usually, the first ramifications of the floral meristem produce the members of the perianth, each corresponding to one article, followed by the sporangiophores, which consist of a system of articles (Claβen-Bockhoff 2024).
Pteridophytes and bryophytes also exhibit a polar organization. In addition to a shoot, most Pteridophytes have roots, but they are not derived from an embryonic root pole opposite the shoot pole, as in seed plants. Even those plants lacking roots are polarized. Thallose liverworts such as Pellia epiphylla exhibit a vertical polarity: the lower side of their dorsiventral thallus faces the earth and its upper side the sky. In addition, the thallus is polarized in the horizontal plane: it grows at the front end while decaying at the rear, thus exhibiting a life and death pole. This dynamic grants it the potential for immortality. Contrary to most plants, such plants are not sedentary, but as one end continues to grow, it slowly and imperceptibly moves along the surface of the ground.
The earlierst fossil land plants probably had a dorsiventral thallus resembling that of thallose liverworts growing horizontally close to the surface of the ground. Subsequently, this prostrate growth became increasingly vertical (erect) as seen in liverworts such as Hymenophyton flabellatum (Schilperoord 2011, p. 62) and the telomic plants. This shift toward verticality was crucial for the evolution of the morphological diversity of vascular plants, culminating in the towering, trees of seed plants, spanning ground and sky, earth and heaven, which the Chinese Daoists understand as an expression of Yin and Yang. According to Hagemann (1976, 1991) and Schilperoord (2011) fossil liverworts gave rise to vascular plants, whereas the predominant view holds that vascular plants evolved from fossil telomic plants (Classen-Bockhoff 2024). Sattler (1998) proposed a synthesis of these opposing views.
Research in plant architecture complements articulation morphology, especially with regard to higher-level units such as branches and the plant as a whole. The different models of tree architecture that have been distinguished (Hallé et al. 1978, Barthélémy and Caraglio 2007) can be understood as strange attractors that are inherently fuzzy, thus requiring fuzzy logic (Oldeman and Vester 1995)). Because of its practical terminology, classical mainstream morphology (Kaplan 2022, Sattler 2022, Sattler and Rutishauser 2023) also remains useful. However, it is limited in scope, as it cannot adequately account for structures that do not fit its categories. These structures have been referred to as "misfits" (Minelli 2015, Rutishauser 2005, 2016, 2020, Rutishauser et al. 2008). "Misfits" are "misfits to a botanical discipline [such as classical morphology], not misfits for a successful existence (Bell 1991). One example of misfits is phylloclades, such as the sterile phylloclades of Semele androgyna of the Asparagaceae (Cooney-Sovetts and Sattler 1987). Their homology has been debated for centuries. However, for articulation morphology, they are not problematical: they simply represent dorsiventral articles. Thus, if we assume that the ancestors of Semele bore axillary branches, then during evolution these branches (a system of articles) have been replaced by a single dorsiventral article (except in the fertile phylloclades where the article bears inflorescences - systems of articles). From the perspective of articulation morphology, the question of homology does not arise. We do not ask whether the single dorsiventral article is homologous with a leaf or a branch. Instead, we ask how development has changed during evolution (evo-devo). Endless debates about the homology of these structures are not helpful and appear futile because they are based on a pseudo-question – the faulty assumption that a structure that does not fit the categories must nonetheless be fitted.
In Ruscus aculeatus, in addition to axillary phylloclades, terminal phylloclades also occur: the SAM (shoot apical meristem) is directly tranformed into a dorsiventral structure that resembles a leaf (Cooney-Sovetts and Sattler 1987).
Another example of a misfit is found in Chisocheton tenuis, where lateral structures in leaf positions exhibit indeterminate growth and bear inflorescences and vegetative shoots on their adaxial side (Fisher and Rutishauser 1990). Again, the homology of these structures has been debated for a long time without any final resolution (Fisher and Rutishauser 1990). Transcending homologization, articulation morphology sees them simply an elaborated system of articles: resembling pinnate leaves, but with indeterminate growth. Thus, during evolution pinnate leaves have acquired indeterminate growth – a process found in shoots.
Even typical pinnate leaves remain controversial (Rutishauser and Sattler 1997, Lacroix et al. 2003). They too cannot be clearly fitted into the leaf category. But from the perspective of articulation morphology, they simply represent an article that produces a secondary set of articles in a distichous arrangement.
An extreme example of a morphological misfit is Wolffia arhiza, the smallest vascular plant on Earth. Its embryo develops into a single flattened article, often referred to as a frond (Lemon and Posluszny 2000). It lacks roots. Homologization is difficult or impossible. However, without attempting homologization, we can understand how the development (ontogeny) of Wolffia has evolved. The first frond (article) evolved through a reduction (elimination) of ramification because the embryo appears to develop directly into the dorsiventral frond (article) without the intervention of a shoot apical meristem (SAM). Subsequently, additional fronds (articles) are formed through budding, which involves ramification and articulation, again without the intervention of a shoot apical meristem. Understanding these processes does not depend on identifying homologies. What matters is the transformation of development during evolution, not morphological homology – the assignment of organ categories. As Wake (2007) pointed out, debates on homology - in this case, whether the frond is homologous to a stem or leaf - are irrelevant to the investigation of developmental transformation during evolution and consequently are a distraction from these central issues. Since the developmental transformation of Wolffia deviates drastically from the usual pattern of flowering plants, Classen-Bockhoff (2024) included Wolffia in her list of exceptions to categorical classical morphology, and Minelli (2015) described it as a "misfit" that does not fit within the classical categories. Yet from the perspective of articulation morphology, Wolffia is neither an exception nor a misfit; it is only an uncommon pattern of articulation. There are no exceptions or misfits in articulation morphology. Hence, it is more fundamental and more comprehensive than categorical organ-based morphology. But what exactly is gained by working with articles?
1. Ramification and articulation are intrinsic to open growth, the most fundamental process of plant morphology. As such, the formation of articles – the direct result of ramification and articulation - is fundamental. While mainstream morphology acknowledges the importance of open growth, it has largely overlooked articles - the most fundamental morphological units – by leaping directly to the homologization of organs.
2. Articles are directly observable, being defined by ramification, whereas organs imply a morphological theory, such as the classical root-stem-leaf model.
3. Articles are continuous with one another. Organs are also continuous, but are often delimited by boundaries that do not exist in nature. For example, the definition of a “leaf” differs depending on whether one follows the root-stem-leaf model, the leaf skin model, or the metameric model. If one surpasses these models, a leaf is still defined differently in terms of the classical theory or Arber’s partial-shoot theory of the leaf (Arber 1950).
4. Articulation morphology is more comprehensive than mainstream morphology. It accommodates all observed plant structures without exceptions. Structures that deviate from the common pattern are not misfits but simply uncommon ramifications and articulations. Changes in ramification and articulation are the explanation for these uncommon patterns.
5. Articles occur in thalli and the cormus, whereas organs are confined to the cormus.
6. Articles span all levels of organization from organs such as leaves to leaflets, stipules, enations, and hairs, whereas organ-based morphology is limited to the level of organs.
7. Articles are not confined to mutually exclusive categories, whereas organs are traditionally classified as belonging to either one category or another such as stem or leaf.
8. From the perspective of articulation morphology, the focus in plant evo-devo is on changes in ramification and articulation. Homology is no longer the most basic issue, although it may still play a role in the elucidation of evolution.
Despite these differences between articulation morphology and categorical organ-based morphology, the gulf between the two could be partially bridged through the following adjustments in categorical organ-based morphology by
a. Recognizing that, like articles, organs cannot be demarcated by boundaries, as there is a continuum within a plant between organs such as the stem and leaf.
b. Acknowledging that some organs, like simple leaves, correspond to a single article, whereas others, such as compound leaves, represent a system of articles.
c. Accepting that mutually exclusive organ categories are too rigid to encompass the full diversity of plant forms, which means admitting, in addition to categorical total homology, also partial homology (Sattler 1994), factorial or combinatorial homology (Minelli 1998, 2016, 2018). Without this broader perspective, structures that do not fit the classical categories ("misfits") are either forced into them or dismissed as exceptions. However, as an alternative, one may redefine the leaf in an inclusive sense that transcends classical categories. In his botanical notes made during his Italian journey, Goethe suggested this broader perspective with his hypothesis: "Alles ist Blatt” (All is leaf). Thus, a leaf that absorbs water we call a root, and a leaf of radial symmetry we call a stem (for the exact German quote see Schad 2005, p. 211). Schad (ibid.) expressed this broader view by defining the leaf as "jedes potenzreiche Grundgewebe" (any ground tissue rich in potential). In this sense, all plant structures, including those of algae, can be understood as leaves (Schad, personal communication). If instead of "any ground tissue rich in potential," we refer to a meristem or primordium rich in potential, we arrive at the notion of the article, a unit arising as a primordium that may differentiate in multitude of ways to produce the diversity of all plant forms. But even without drawing this conclusion, both the leaf in the broad sense and the article in articulation morphology, constitute a fundamental unit of plant construction. Thus, the diversity of plant forms arises through a differentiation of this basic unit, leaving no exceptions or misfits. As Goethe pointed out, the simplicity of just one fundamental unit (instead of three basic categories) makes possible the greatest diversity (see Bortoft 1996, p. 80). The fundamental unit of the article may be considered a module as the basic constituent of plants.
Furthermore, in this unitary approach, it is no longer necessary to determine whether a structure is homologous with either this or that category since mutually exclusive categories such as root, stem and leaf have been superseded. Aristotelian either/or logic is thereby transcended, especially where it leads to pseudo-questions.
Nine Approaches to Plant Morphology
To place articulation morphology into a broader context, I will briefly outline nine approaches to plant morphology, and then, in the next section, I will compare it with the approaches most closely related to it.
1. Classical Morphology
Classical Morphology asserts that all structures, at least in seed plants, can be understood in terms of the root-stem-leaf model. This means that any organ we encounter must be a homologue of either a root, a stem, or a leaf. However, the categorization of atypical structures remains controversial. Nonetheless, classical morphology still tends to be predominant in mainstream morphology.
Plant architecture (Hallé et al. 1978, Barthélémy and Caraglio 2007) may be seen as an extension of classical morphology. Since its focus is on higher-level units such as branches and the whole plant, it may encounter only rarely the problems or pseudo-problems of classical morphology.
2. Developmental Morphology
Developmental Morphology (according to Classen-Bockhoff 2024) explains the vast majority of plant structures according to classical morphology but recognizes, like Rutishauser (2005, 2016, 2020), that there are exceptions (misfits) that cannot be fitted into the classical categories. It also includes de novo structures not considered in classical morphology. In contrast to dogmatic classical morphology, this approach could be characterized as an open morphology.
Plant architecture is compatible with this approach.
3. Arber’s Partial-Shoot Theory
Arber’s Partial-Shoot Theory recognizes only one morphological category – the shoot (Arber 1950). According to this theory, leaves, leaflets, leaf lobes, even hairs to which leaf lobes may eventually be reduced, and roots are partial shoots (ibid., 132-135, 140-142, 159). Since partiality is a matter of degree, Rutishauser and Isler (2001) referred to Fuzzy Arberian Morphology (FAM) in contrast to categorical classical morphology (ClaM).
4. Continuum Morphology
Continuum Morphology (Sattler and Jeune 1992, Rutishauser 2020) has two aspects: 1. A continuum within any individual plant since there are no clear-cut boundaries between parts of a plant such as roots, stems, and leaves, and 2. A continuum between the structural categories of classical morphology. The exceptions (misfits) of Classen-Bockhoff’s morphology are absorbed within the continuum of structural categories and thus cease to be exceptions.
5. Process Morphology
Process morphology (Sattler 1992, Rutishauser 2020) envisages structures as process combinations. Τhese process combiantions form a continuum as in continuum morphology. For practical purposes, process combinations may be referred to as structures.
6. Articulation Morphology
As in Continuum and Process Morphology, there are no exceptions (misfits) in Articulation Morphology. Like Developmental Morphology, articulation morphology is based on open growth, the most fundamental process that distinguishes plants from most animals. However, contrary to mainstream morphology, articulation morphology recognizes that open growth implies ramification and articulation: the formation of articles, which have been overlooked in mainstream morphology. Articles are described in terms of process morphology as process combinations or, for practical purposes, as structures that correspond with process combinations. In articulation morphology, all morphological patterns are an expression of ramification and articulation. The most common patterns are those that are recognized by classical morphology. Those patterns that do not fit into the classical framework are simply unusual patterns of ramification and articulation. In contrast to the other approaches whose central concept is homology, in articulation morphology the focus is on transformation: transformation of ramification and articulation during ontogeny and phylogeny.
Plant Architecture complements articulation morphology to the extent that its focus is on whole plants and higher-level units such as branches.
7. Algorithmic Morphology
Algorithmic Plant Morphology involves modelling, simulation, and visualization of plant development using computer science. Various methods are employed such as computer graphics, formal language theory, and programming language design (Prusinkiewicz and Runions 2012, Runions et al. 2017, Di et al. 2021). As Minelli (2018, pp. 57-60) pointed out, this approach may involve “a view of the plant body very different from the traditional one, within which leaves, inflorescences, flowers, petals, stamens, etc. are ‘given’ - that is, represent (1) homologues … and (2) plant organs” (ibid., pp. 59-60). Instead, this approach focuses on “properties (e.g. ‘floweriness’ or ‘petalness’) with a specific …spatial distribution” (ibid., pp. 59-60). Algorithmic morphology may contribute to the causal analysis of plant development as, for example, in phyllotaxis research (Barabé and Lacroix 2020, Reinhardt and Gola 2022). Furthermore, algorithmic morphology has an aesthetic appeal (Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer 1996).
8. Causal Morphology
Causal Morphology investigates the causation of plant development on the background of the descriptive and comparative frameworks of the preceding approaches. Nowadays, the predominant causal analysis is through developmental genetics. A considerable number of genes have been identified that influence the development of plant form. Epigenetic factors also affect gene expression. Even the experimenter may play a role in gene expression, which is known as the experimenter effect (Church 2018).
9. Functional Morphology
Functional morphology examines the functions of morphological traits. According to Bai (2017), the two major functions of plants are improvement of energy acquisition (photosynthesis) and adaptions to environmental stress.
Complementarity
Rutishauser and Sattler (1985) and Rutishauser (2020) emphasized the complementarity of different shoot models (see above). Similarly, classical morphology and developmental morphology can be considered complementary to continuum and process morphology because, although more limited, they seem appropriate and useful for the majority of structures and offer convenient terminology. Classen-Bockhoff (2024), by recognizing exceptions (misfits) that in classical morphology are forced into categories where they don’t belong, offers an important complement to classical morphology. Arber’s partial-shoot theory adds another perspective to our understanding of the leaf and the root. Continuum and process morphology extend classical and developmental morphology because they incorporate misfits within a continuum of structures or processes (Rutishauser 2020). Although classical and continuum morphology have been conceived as sub-classes of process morphology (Lacroix et al. 2005, Jeune et al. 2006), they can also be considered complementary. Articulation morphology can be seen as an aspect of process morphology (see below) and supplements it as it is all-encompassing and most fundamental and transformational. The other approaches to plant morphology are also complementary. Algorithmic morphology uses computer modelling in contrast to the other conceptual approaches, and causal morphology analyzes the causation of the development of structures, while functional morphology is concerned with the functions of structures. Thus, each approach contributes differently to a better understanding of plant morphology. At least some of the nine approaches overlap and the list is not exhaustive. Other approaches such as the metameric (phytomeric) model (the modular approach) could be added, and Plant Architecture might be considered a separate approach.
Homology
Homology is widely considered the most basic and central concept of morphology. However, there is no consensus on how it should be defined (Hall 1994). Since Owen’s (1943) classic definition as the sameness of organs, many different definitions have proliferated (Hall 1994, Ochoterena et al. 2019). It is difficult to find a common denominator for this array of definitions, but maybe one could venture to suggest that they all revolve around the idea of correspondence and similarity or sameness with or without reference to common ancestry. Throughout this essay, “homology” refers specifically to morphological homology, even when not explicitly stated.
How do the nine approaches relate to homology, if at all? In classical morphology and developmental morphology (according to Classen-Bockhoff), homology is usually defined as sameness or essential similarity. Thus, if two organs belong to the same morphological category, such as stem or leaf, they are homologous. This kind of homology is based on either/or logic: an organ either belongs to a category or not. A problem – or rather a pseudo-problem - arises if an organ does not fit any of the categories, for example, if it is intermediate between two categories. In such cases, endless debates have resulted into which of the two categories the organ should be forced. To end such futile debates, Classen-Bockhoff (2024) acknowledges that there are exceptions (misfits) such as Wolffia that do not fit the categories and therefore they cannot and should not be homologized. Furthermore, homology does not apply to flowers and their sporangiophores since she considers them as de novo structures that are not comparable to the vegetative shoot. This highlights the limitations of the classical homology concept. If, however, we accept the concept of partial, factorial or combinatorial homology (Sattler 1994, Minelli 2018), then misfits can be accommodated as structures that are partially homologous to more than one category. For example, the phylloclade of Ruscus aculeatus can be seen as partially homologous to an axillary shoot and a leaf (Cooney-Sovetts and Sattler 1987). This combinatorial view of homology has also been implied in continuum and process morphology (Sattler 1994). Furthermore, it has been recognized in causal morphology. For example, it was shown that during the development of the phylloclade of Ruscus aculeatus genes are expressed that are normally expressed in the shoot apex and leaves (Hirayama et al. 2007). Therefore, these authors concluded that “the phylloclade is not homologous to either the shoot or the leaf, but that it has a double identity” (ibid.). This represents a shift from either/or logic to both/and logic (Sattler 2018), thus offering a more inclusive understanding of homology.
Arber’s Partial Shoot Theory does not explicitly rely on homology. The term is not listed in the index of The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form (Arber 1950) and I could not find any reference to homology in this encompassing book. Since, according to her theory, all structures are a partial shoot, the question of whether they are homologous to this or that category does not arise. There is only one fundamental category: the shoot. As such, her theory is a unifying framework like Goethe’s and Schad’s leaf theory (see above).
Functional morphology is likewise unconcerned with homology and the algorithmic approach also does not rely it. The primary aim of the latter is to generate the widest possible range of morphological patterns. However, once these patterns have been generated, they could be compared in terms of total and partial homology.
In articulation morphology, the situation is similar. To understand evolution as changes in ramification and articulation, we do not need to enquire about homology, for example, we do not need to ask whether compound leaves are homologous with simple leaves or partial-shoots. What matters is tracing the transformation of ramification and articulation. However, if we wish to consider questions of homology, we may still do so, though the primary aim of articulation morphology is not the search for homology, but the exploration of transformation: the transformation of ramification and articulation.
To sum up, although homology is still widely held to the most basic and central concept of morphology, this is not the case for all approaches to plant morphology. In developmental morphology (according to Classen-Bockhoff 2024), homology does not apply to exceptional forms and not to sporangiophores of flowers. Arber (1950) makes no explicit reference to homology. Neither algorithmic morphology nor functional morphology nor articulation morphology have homologization as their primary goal. Causal morphology may or may not address questions of homology, depending on the specific context. While continuum and process morphology have been framed in terms of total and partial homology, they can also be conceived independently of the notion of homology and morphological categories.
Articulation Morphology, Continuum and Process Morphology
Articulation Morphology includes both continuum and process morphology (Sattler 1974, Sattler 1992, Rutishauser 2020) and also goes beyond them. While continuum morphology relies on the classical categories as a reference system and demonstrates a continuum between them (Sattler and Jeune 1992), articulation morphology operates independently of these classical categories. It can, however, retrospectively reveal that common patterns of ramification and articulation correspond with classical categories. It may also be possible to devise a continuum morphology that does not rely on the classical categories as a reference system.
Process morphology can be understood in at least two ways:
1. As in continuum morphology, the categories of classical morphology are used as reference points, but here they are understood as process combinations. They are linked through a continuum of process combinations, which leads to a dynamic continuum (Jeune and Sattler 1992).
2. Alternatively, process morphology and process combinations can also be understood independently of the reference system of classical morphology. In this broader context, articulation morphology is a uniquely dynamic approach based on the fundamental process of open growth that implies the equally fundamental processes of ramification and articulation. It explores how these processes manifest during during ontogeny and how ontogeny has changed during evolution, hence evo-devo.
Continuum morphology (Sattler and Jeune 1992) and process morphology (Jeune and Sattler (1992) did not address ontogeny, but only compared typical and atypical structures or process combination and demonstrated that they are linked through a continuum. Since articulation morphology incorporates ontogeny from the embryo to the mature plant, it is more comprehensive than continuum and process morphology but includes them since articles form a continuum of structures or process combination.
If the continuum of continuum and process morphology is conceived as extending horizontally and ontogeny as vertically, then articulation morphology can be seen to surpass both continuum and process morphology because it incorporates also the vertical dimension, thereby making it more comprehensive.
Homology - both total and partial – has been implied in continuum and process morphology (Sattler 1994). In continuum morphology, structures are totally or partially homologous (Sattler and Jeune 1992), whereas in the dynamic continuum, it is the process combinations that show total and partial homology (Sattler 1994). However, it may be possible to conceive of a continuum and process morphology that does not imply homology. In articulation morphology, transformation, not homology, is the most basic concept: transformation of patterns of ramification and articulations. Subsequently, these patterns may be compared in terms of total and partial homology, thus linking articulation morphology with the dynamic continuum – the dynamic interpretation of continuum morphology.
Shared Background of the Morphological Approaches
The morphological approaches, different as they are, nonetheless share a common background. This background is often taken for granted and many morphologists may not even be aware of it, but it is relevant to the way we understand facts. For naïve realists, facts exist independently of us, whereas to critical observers, facts constitute a consensus that is due to a common background. This common background is not easily elucidated, but several of its key dimensions can be outlined:
1. Morphology deals with the physical aspect of plant form. This aspect of form is perceived through vision and interpreted intellectually. Therefore, Arber (1950, p.211, 1954) understood morphology as a synthesis of the eye and the intellect or mind. Materialists maintain that only the physical realm exists and mind is seen as an epiphenomenon of the brain - hence, fundamentally also physical. However, there is much evidence for a reality beyond the material that has been referred to by different names such as spirit (e.g., Ravindra 1991) or consciousness (e.g., Greene 2009, Hoffman 2019). Although morphology is restricted to physicality, it is important to realize that physical form – the very subject of morphology - emerges from a more encompassing reality. Contemplating forms in nature - such as a flower - may lead us to an awareness of this deeper reality.
2. The physical aspect of plant form is described and analyzed in terms of the categories of space and time, which do not exist independently of us but are our common way of perceiving reality. Mystics and some poets have long recognized that space and time do not constitute ultimate reality. In Siddhartha, Hermann Hesse (1951) wrote: “Time is not real…And if time is not real, then the dividing line that seems to lie between this world and eternity…is also an illusion.” Similarly, William Blake concluded:
To see the world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour
Plant morphologists, then, may realize that the common experience of plant form in terms of space and time emerges from a deeper reality of infinity and eternity.
3. Morphologists rely on language to describe and analyze plant form. However, words and concepts cannot fully capture reality as it is; they are an abstraction from reality. Abstracting means selecting some features while omitting others. Therefore, Korzybski (1933) concluded that whatever you say about reality is not reality. Language functions like a map: useful for navigation, but ultimately not the territory it represents.
How does all this relate to articulation morphology? I emphasized that, in contrast to organs that are based on a morphological theory, articles are factual. However, this does not mean that they represent ultimate reality. They represent a consensus of morphologists that is based on a widely shared background – but a consensus that captures only an aspect of the reality of plants. An awareness of these limitations can lead to a deeper understanding of plants - one from which morphology itself emerges. In this light, contemplating a leaf or a flower, then, can become a door to a more profound reality.
Articulation morphology, in this sense, may be seen as an expression of the profound wisdom of the Heart Sutra, which, in Tanahashi’s (2014) translation, states:
Form is boundlessness;
boundlessness is form.
Since articles are continuous with the whole plant, their form is boundless, yet this boundlessness manifests as the form of articles. Thus, there is no contradiction between boundlessness and articulation, which is indicated by saying that the plant is an articulated whole, a unity in multiplicity, where form and boundlessness coincide.
Evo-Devo and Articulation Morphology
According to evo-devo, the evolution of plants is the evolution of plant development (Minelli 2018, Rutishauser 2020). Morpho evo-devo emphasizes the morphological aspects of evo-devo (Wanninger 2015, Petrone-Mendoza et al. 2023). Within this framework, articulation morphology investigates morphological changes in ramification and articulation. The evolution of land plants involved a shift from dichotomous to lateral ramification and eventually also to axillary branching. In many cases, laterally formed articlesgave rise to additional articles - for example, in compound leaves. Whereas in mainstream morphology simple and compound leaves are considered homologous, in articulation morphology they are not because simple leaves are due to one ramification and compound leaves to another set or sets of ramifications. What counts are ramifications and the resulting articulation. Hence, the challenge in evo-devo is to explain the change in ramification and articulation. Instead of asking how organs such as stamens and carpels changed, the more fundamental question is now how and why ramification and articulation changed, how and why one system of articles became transformed into another one.
Although a change in ramification and articulation is of central importance in evolution, we have to recognize also the prevalent repetition of ramification and articulation in both development and evolution. For example, the same articles such as a particular leaf type may be produced repeatedly along the stem of a plant. Similarly, much repetition occurs during evolution. Only some patterns of ramification and articulation change, whereas many others are retained over long periods.
Switching from an organ-based approach to one centered on ramification and articulation can change the questions we ask and the insights we obtain. Consider the example of carpels. In mainstream morphology, a carpel is interpreted as a closed megasporophyll, that is, a leaf homologue. In contrast, according to articulation morphology, ramification at the floral apex produces a carpel primordium that develops into an article, the carpel, which I prefer to call a gynoecial appendage (Sattler 2024). As the gynoecial appendage develops, ramification leads to the formation of ovules: first the nucelli, then the integument(s). Hence, the formation of a carpel (a gynoecial appendage with ovules) involves three or four ramifications resulting in four kinds of articles: the gynoecial appendage, the nucellus, and one or two integuments. Contrary to the organ-based approach of mainstream morphology, the question in articulation morphology is no longer whether the carpel is a leaf homologue. The question is how have ramification and articulation changed. This provides a new direction for evo-devo research: instead of analyzing the carpel as a whole, we have to ask questions about the ramifications and the resulting articulations: where is the placenta, which is an article, formed? How does it ramify, and what articles result from the ramification? Since these questions concern morphology, the fundamental importance of morphology in evo-devo research becomes evident. Before proceeding to analyses of developmental genetics, which are important in evo-devo, the initial questions are framed in morphological terms, and here we have the choice between categorical terms of mainstream morphology, laden with questionable assumptions of homology, or terms of articulation morphology that refer to directly observable processes. Thus, articulation morphology can reorient analyses of developmental genetics to articles, the fundamental units of plant morphology.
Interestingly, even without reference to the theory of anaphytes, which has been largely forgotten, some researchers have already moved toward it in its modern version that I call Articulation Morphology. Thus, from the perspective of developmental genetics that plays a major role in evo-devo, Mathews and Kramer (2012) concluded “that the carpel is a complex organ consisting of a foliaceous appendage and the placenta,” hence two articles: the foliaceous appendage and the placenta. On morphological grounds, Sattler (2024) came to the same conclusion. The complexity arises through ramification and articulation.
Thus, articulation morphology offers a framework for the investigation of developmental genetics in evo-devo. By focusing on articles rather than organs, it can reveal aspects that have been missed in organ-based evo-devo and thus may open new avenues for evo-devo research.
Conclusions
Like animals, plants exhibit polarity; but unlike animals, plants have open growth, which may continue throughout their lives. Open growth leads to ramification, and ramification leads to articulation: the formation of an article from each ramification and between successive ramifications. Since ramification and articulation are intrinsic to open growth, open growth constitutes the most basic and distinctive process of plant construction. Open growth means continuous development leading to the genesis of articles. Thus, plant development can be understood as continuous articulated growth and differentiation. Growth and differentiation are two basic processes in process morphology besides decay and dedifferentiation (Sattler 1990, 1992).
According to articulation morphology - which could also be called segmentation morphology or open morphology - a plant is an articulated (or segmented) whole: a system of interconnected articles arising through ramification. In contrast to mainstream morphology, whose fundamental units are organs, in articulation morphology the fundamental units are articles. Articles originate as growth centres (primordia) in continuity with preceding articles. They are directly observable since ramifications can be observed, and in this sense, they are not controversial. In contrast, organs are defined within the framework of a morphological theory, such as the controversial and limited classical root-stem-leaf theory. However, although articulation morphology is based on articles instead of organs, a connection to organs can be made. If an article does not ramify further, it corresponds to an organ. Thus, for example, a simple leaf is an article and also an organ. However, if a leaf forms leaflets, it corresponds to a system of articles. Articles formed between ramifications, such as internodes, do not correspond to an organ.
Ramification can also be understood as an expression of differential growth since differential growth may lead to articulation. And the development of the articles can be seen as a process of differentiation. Thus, instead of referring to a plant as an articulated whole, one could conceive of it as a differentiated whole. However, in articulation morphology this differentiated whole is described in terms of articles, not in terms of organs as in mainstream morphology. Instead of 'articles', one could refer to segments, structural units, or simply structures, defined by ramification, that are differentiated in many ways.
Mainstream morphology remains useful and complementary to articulation morphology, but it cannot accommodate structures that deviate from its categorical organ-based framework. In contrast, articulation morphology is all-encompassing. Even the most deviant structures can be understood as deviant patterns of ramification and articulation. Thus, articulation morphology provides a more comprehensive framework, which can open new avenues for evo-devo research.
If one wants to make comparisons between articles, one may apply fuzzy set theory, according to which differences range from 0% toward 100%, which means “more or less different” in ordinary language. One might interpret the difference, which corresponds to degrees of similarity, as the homology of articles, ranging from total to partial homology, with total homology being 0% difference (sameness). However, in articulation morphology, the central and most basic concept is no longer morphological homology but transformation: the transformation of ramification and articulation. This changes the most basic questions we ask. Instead of asking questions about morphological homology, we ask how ramification and articulation have changed during development and evolution – a shift in focus that changes fundamentally our way of thinking about morphology and consequently morphological investigation. Thus, articulation morphology investigates transformation directly without the interference of morphological homology, whereas mainstream morphology uses morphological homology as its most basic and central concept and infers the transformation of development during evolution within the framework of morphological homology with all of its ensuing unresolved problems and controversies.
Throughout the history of plant morphology, a wide range of morphological theories and concepts have been proposed (Cusset 1982). Often, their authors have been more or less critical or even hostile to each other. However, at least some morphologists have become more tolerant, viewing different approaches as complementary (Rutishauser and Sattler 1985, Classen-Bockhoff 2024). Through the observable processes of ramification and articulation, articulation morphology offers a factual non-controversial foundation that could serve as a common ground for all morphologists, regardless of their theoretical preferences. Although the morphological component of the theory of anaphytes - the precursor of articulation morphology - already had this unifying potential, it has been almost completely ignored and forgotten. Only very few authors referred to it (see Cusset 1982, Rutishauser and Sattler 1985, Sattler 2018, 2019). Foster, originally the senior author of the well-known textbook Comparative Morphology of Vascular Plants (Foster and Gifford 1974), concluded at the end of his life that “a theory, in some way analogous to that of the anaphytes, was most valuable” (quoted by Cusset 1982, p. 46). Nevertheless, Kaplan (2022), his most prominent student, like most mainstream morphologists, remained committed to classical morphology, although the theory of anaphytes and especially its modern version, articulation morphology, offer a more inclusive and comprehensive perspective.
Briefly, the significance of articulation morphology is at least two-fold: first, it moves beyond the rigidity of the categories of classical mainstream morphology that may create pseudo-problems; and second, it offers a unified, process-oriented approach: unified because it includes all exceptions (misfits) so that they cease to be exceptions, and process-oriented because it is based on the fundamental process of open growth that implies ramification and articulation: the formation of articles, whose existence has been largely overlooked because of the organ-centered approach of mainstream morphology. This essay seeks to reintroduce articles - that could also be referred to as segments, structural units or simply structures defined by ramification - and to highlight their fundamental significance for plant morphology and plant evo-devo.
Acknowledgements: I am very grateful to Regine Classen-Bockhoff, Daniel Faccini, Bruce Kirchoff, Alessandro Minelli, and Rolf Rutishauser for their critical evaluations of the first versions of this essay, which contributed to its improvement and expansion.
References
Arber, A. 1950. The natural philosophy of plant form. Cambridge University Press. Reprinted by Hafner Publishing Co., Darien, Conn. 1970.
Arber, A. 1964. The Mind and the Eye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bai, S-N. 2017. Reconsideration of plant morphological traits: from a structure-based perspective to a function-based evolutionary perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00345
Barabé, D. and Lacroix, C. 2020. Phyllotactic Patterns. A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: World Scientific.
Barthélémy, D. and Caraglio, Y. 2007. Plant architecture: A dynamic, multilevel and comprehensive approach to plant form, structure and ontogeny. Ann. Bot. 99(3): 375-407. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2802949/
Bell, A. D. 1991. Plant Form - An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beerling, D. J. and Fleming, A.J. 2007. Zimmermann’s telome theory of megaphyll leaf evolution. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 10: 4-12.
Bortoft, H. 1996. The Wholeness of Nature. Hudson, N. Y.: Lindisfarne Press.
Braun, A. 1851. Betrachtungen über die Erscheinung der Verjüngung in der Natur. Leipzig: Engelmann.
Church, D. 2018. Mind to Matter. New York: Hay House.
Claßen-Bockhoff, R. 2016.The shoot concept of the flower: Still up to date? Flora 221: 46-53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2015.11.012
Claßen-Bockhoff, R. (author), Geyer, M. (Illustrator), Lay, M. (Illustrator) 2024. Die Pflanze: Morphologie, Entwicklung und Evolution von Vielfalt. Berlin: Springer Spektrum.
Cooney-Sovetts, C. and Sattler, R. 1987. Phylloclade development in the Asparagaceae: an example of homoeosis. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 94: 327-371 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1986.tb01053.x
Cusset, G. 1982. The conceptual bases of plant morphology. In: Sattler, R. (ed.) Axioms and Principles of Plant Construction. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers, pp. 8-86: also published in Acta Biotheor. Vol. 31A.
Di, S., Cao, L., Ge, Y. 2021. Visualization methods of 3D plant models: A systematic mapping study. J. Elect. Comp. Engin. 2021(1): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2754343
Fisher, J. B. and Rutishauser, R. 1990. Leaves and epiphyllous shoots in Chisocheton (Meliaceae): a continuum of woody leaf and stem axes. Can. J. Bot. 68: 2316-2328.
https://doi.org/10.1139/b90-296
Foster, A. S. and Gifford, E. M. 1974. Comparative Morphology of Vascular Plants. San Francisco: Freeman.
Greene, D. 2009. Endless Energy. The Essential Guide to Energy Health. Maui, HI: MetaComm Media.
Hagemann, W. 1976. Sind Farne Kormophyten? Eine Alterantive zur Telomtheorie. Plant Syst. Evol. 124: 251-277.
Hagemann, W. 1991. The evolution of pteridophytes, new ideas based on the comparative evaluation of the construction of plants. Apects of Plant Sci. 13: 1-20.
Hall, B. K. (ed.) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. New York: Academic Press.
Hallé, F., Oldeman, R. A. A., Tomlinson, P. B. 1978. Tropical Trees and Forests. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hesse, H. 1951. Siddhartha (English translation). New York: New Directions Publishing Co.
Hirayama, Y. et al. 2007. Expression patterns of class I Knox and Yabby genes in Ruscus aculeatus (Asparagaceae) with implications for phylloclade homology. Dev. Genes Evol.217: 363-372.Hoffman, D. 2019. The Case against Reality. Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes. New York: W.W. Norton.
Howard, R. A. 1974. The stem-node-leaf continuum in the Dicotyledonae. J. Arnold. Arb. 55: 125-181.
Jeune, B. and Sattler, R. 1992. Multivariate analysis in process morphology of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 156: 147-167.
Jeune, B., Barabé, D., Lacroix, C. 2006. Classical and dynamic morphology: Toward a synthesis through the space of forms. Acta Biotheor. 54: 277-293.
Kaplan, D. R. 2022. Kaplan's Principles of Plant Morphology (edited by C. D. Specht). CRC Press.
Korzybski, A. Science and Sanity. An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Institute of General Semantics. http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm
Kripal, J. J. 2019. The Flip. New York: Bellevue Literary Press.
Lacroix, C., Jeune, B., Purcell-Macdonald, S. 2003. Shoot and compound leaf comparisons in eudicots: dynamic morphology as an alternative approach. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 143: 219-230.
Lacroix, C., Jeune, B., Barabé, D. 2005. Encasement in plant morphology: an integrative approach from genes to organism. Can. J. bot, 83: 1207-1221.
Lemon, G. and Posluszny, U. 2000. Comparative shoot development and evolution of the Lemnaceae. Int. J. Plant Sci. 161: 733-748.
Mathews, S. and Kramer, E. 2012. The evolution of reproductive structures in seed plants: A re- examination based on insights from developmental genetics. New Phytol. 194: 910-923 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04091.x
Minelli, A. 1998. Molecules, developmental modules and phenotypes: A combinatorial approach to homology. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 9: 340-347.
Minelli, A. 2015. Morphological misfits and the architecture of development. In: Serrelli, E. and Gontier, N. (eds) Macroevolution. Interdisciplinary Evolution Research. Vol.2. Cham, Switzerland: Spsringer, pp. 329-343.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15045-1_10
Minelli, A. 2016. Tracing homologies in an ever-changing world. Rivista di Estetica 62: 40-55.
https://doi.org/10.4000/estetica.1174
Minelli, A. 2018. Plant evolutionary developmental morphology. The evolvability of the phenotype. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Minelli, A. 2021. On the nature of organs and organ systems - A chapter in the history and philosophy of biology. Front. Eco. Evol. 9: 745564.
doi:10.3389/fevo.2021.745564
Minelli, A. 2023. A refreshed approach to homology - prioritizing epistemology over metaphysics. J. Morph. 284(1):e21533
doi:10.1002/jmor.21533
Nicholson, D. J. and Dupré, J. 2018. Everything Flows. Toward a Processual Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ochoterena, H., Vrijdaghs, A., Smets, E. and Claßen-Bockhoff, R. 2019. The search for common origin: Homology revisited. Syst. Biol.
68: 768-780.
Oldeman, R. A. A. and Vester, H. F. M. 1995. Tree architecture, strange attractors and fuzzy logic. Paper presented at the third International Congress “The Tree” in Montpellier, France.
Owen, R. 1843. Lectures on Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals. London: Longman.
Petrone-Mendoza, E., Vergara-Silva, F. and Olson, M. E. 2023. Plant morpho evo-devo. Trends Plant Sci. 28: 1257-1276 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2023.06.007
Prusinkiewicz, P. and Lindenmayer, A. 1996. The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants. New York: Springer.
Prusinkiewicz, P. and Runions, A. 2012. Computational models of plant development and form. New Phytol. 193(3): 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
Ravindra, R. 1991. Science and Spirit. New York: Paragon House.
Reinhardt, D. and Gola, E. M. 2022. Law and order in plants – the origin and functional relevance of phyllotaxis. Trends Plant Sci. 27(10): 1017-1032.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.04.005
Runions, A., Tsiantis, M., Prusinkiewicz, P. 2017. A common developmental programme can produce diverse leaf shapes. New Phytol. 216: 401-418.
Rutishauser, R. 2005. Der Bauplan abweichend gebauter Blütenpflanzen (Misfits) - Kontinuumsmodel (FAM) ergänzt klassisches Model (ClaM). In: Harlan (ed) Wert und Grenzen des Typus in der botanischen Morphologie. Nümbrecht: Martina-Galunder Verlag, pp. 127-148.
Rutishauser, R. 2016. Evolution of unusual morphologies in Lentibulariaceae (bladderworts and allies) and Podostemonaceae (river-weeds): a pictorial report at the interface of developmental biology and morphological diversification. Annals Bot. 117: 811-832. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv172
Rutishauser, R. 2020. EvoDevo: Past and future of continuum and process plant morphology. Philosophies 5, 41 https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5040041
Rutishauser, R. and Sattler, R. 1985. Complementarity and heuristic value of contrasting models in structural botany. 1. General considerations. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 107: 415-455.
Rutishauser, R. and Sattler. 1997. Expression of shoot processes in leaf development of Polemonium caeruleum as compared to other dicotelydons. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 119: 563-582.
Rutishauser, R. and Isler, B. 2001. Developmental genetics and morphological evolution of flowering plants, especially bladderworts (Utricularia): Fuzzy Arberian morphology complements classical morphology. Annals Bot. 88: 1173-1202 https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2001.1498
Rutishauser, R. Grob, V., Pfeifer, E. 2008. Plants are used to having identity crises. In: Minelli, A, Fusco, G. (eds) Evolving Pathways. Key Themes in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 194-213.
Sachs, J. 1982. Vorlesungen über Pflanzen-Physiologie. Leipzig: Engelman.
Sattler, R. 1974. A new conception of the shoot of higher plants. J. Theor. Biol. 47: 367-382.
Sattler, R. 1978. “Fusion” and “continuity” in floral morphology. Notes of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh 36: 397-405.
Sattler, R. 1990. Towards a more dynamic plant morphology. Acta Biotheor. 38: 303-315.
Sattler, R. 1992. Process morphology: Structural dynamics in development and evolution. Can. J. Bot. 70: 708-714 https://doi.org/10.1139/b92-091
Sattler, R. 1994. Homology, homeosis and process morphology in plants, In: Hall, B. K. (ed.) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 423-475.
Sattler, R. 1998. On the origin of symmetry, branching and phyllotaxis in land plants. In: Jean, R. V. and Barabé, D. (eds) Symmetry in Plants. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 775-793.
Sattler, R. 2018. Philosophy of plant morphology. Elemente Naturwiss. 108: 55-79 (for an expanded version see https://beyondwilber.ca/about/plant-morphology/philosophy-of-plant-morphology.html
Sattler, R. 2019. Structural and dynamic approaches to the development and evolution of plant form. In: Fusco, G. (ed.) Perspectives on Evolutionary and Developmental Biology. Padova: Padova University Press, pp. 57-70.
Sattler, R. 2022. Kaplan's principles of plant morphology: a critical review. Bot. Rev. 88: 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-022-09280-8 or as a PDF here https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12229-022-09280-8.pdf.
Sattler, R. 2024. Morpho evo-devo of the gynoecium: Heterotopy, redefinition of the carpel, and the topographic approach. Plants 13(5), 599; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13050599
Sattler, R. and Jeune, B. 1992. Multivariate analysis confirms the continuum view of plant form. Ann. Bot. 69: 249-262.
Sattler, R. and Rutishauser, R. 2023. Fundamentals of plant morphology and plant evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology). Plants12(1),118; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010118
Schad, W. 2005. Die Evolution von Makrophyten in der Paläobotanik. In: Harlan, V. (ed.) Wert und Grenzen des Typus in der botanischen Morphologie. Nümbrecht: Martina Galunder-Verlag, pp. 201-216.
Schilperoord, P. 2011. Metamorphosen im Pflanzenreich. Stuttgart: Freies Geistesleben.
Schultz, C. H. 1943. Die Anaphytose oder Verjüngung der Pflanzen. Ein Schlüssel zur Erklärung des Wachsens, Blühens und Fruchttragens, mit praktischen Rücksichten auf die Kultur der Pflanzen. Berlin: Julius Sittenfeld.
Schultz-Schultzenstein, C. H. 1867. De la difference qui existe entre la théorie de l’anaphytose des plantes et la théorie de la metamorphose. Actes du Congrès International de Botanique Paris, pp. 100-117.
Stein, W. E. and Boyer, J. S. 2006. Evolution of land plant architecture. Beyond the telome theory. Paleobiol 32: 450-482.
Tanahashi, K. 2014. The Heart Sutra. Boston: Shambhala.
Troll, W. 1937-1943. Vergleichende Morphologie der höheren Planzen. 3 volumes. Berlin: Borntraeger.
Troll W. 1954. Praktische Einführung in die Pflanzenmorphologie. 1. Teil: Der vegetative Aufbau. Jena: Fischer.
Wake, D. B. 2007. Homoplasy, homology and the problem of ‘sameness’ in biology. Novartis Foundation Symposium 222: 24-46.
Wanninger, A. 2015. Morphology is dead – Long live morphology! Integrating MorphoEvoDevo into molecular EvoDevo and phylogenomics. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 54.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00054
White, J. 1979. The plant as a metapopulation. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10(1):109-145.
Winther, R. G. 2011. Part-whole science. Synthese 178: 397-427.
doi:10.1002/jmor21533
Zimmermann, W. 1952. Main results of the telome theory. Palaeobot. 1: 456-470.
Zimmermann, W. 1959. Die Phylogenie der Pflanzen. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag
Zimmermann, W. 1961. Phylogenetic shifting of organs, tissues, and phases in pteridophytes. Can. J. Bot. 39: 1547-1553.
Zimmermann, W. 1965. Die Telomtheorie. Fortschritte der Evolutionsforschung, Vol. 1. Jena: G. Fischer.
.
