Abstract
PROF. PLANTEFOL'S chief criticism of my review seems to be that I have taken as the most important feature of his book the conclusions concerning leaf formation at the apex which he has based on his observations of the relative positions of leaves or of their scars on mature stems. He claims that even apart from these conclusions his observations have value and lead to a law which solves various morphological problems. But his book and also his recent paper make it appear throughout that this law or theory, the theory of the foliar helices, was indeed intended as a causal theory of leaf formation. Thus, for example, on p. 195 of his book, in discussing Lilium candidum, he refers to the three foliar helices which he finds as being a "système fait de l'activité de trois centres générateurs de feuilles, entités douées chacune de propriétés mitotiques particulières, qui se transmettent de proche en proche suivant la ligne que trace l'hélice". I maintain, therefore, that I was right in regarding his theory of the foliar helices, supplemented by his theory of the apical organiser, as being essentially a causal theory of leaf formation at the apex, though based on observations made on mature parts of shoots. If he now proposes to regard this theory as being essentially only a descriptive rule, then how can such a descriptive rule concerning the positions of leaves on mature stems explain anything, or lead to anything more than a classification of facts?
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Church, A. H., "On the Relation of Phyllotaxis to Mechanical Laws" (London, 1904).
Papers in Symposia, Soc. Exp. Biol., 2, (Cambridge, 1948).
Weisse, A., Jb. wiss. Bot., 39, 343 (1904).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
SNOW, R. Letters to Editor. Nature 163, 332 (1949). https://doi.org/10.1038/163332a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/163332a0
This article is cited by
-
Recent experimental studies of the shoot apex and shoot morphogenesis
The Botanical Review (1965)
-
Generalizations on the Apical Meristem
Nature (1956)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.