Halle, F. 2002. Chapter 2 – A Visit to the Landscape of Form (p. 41-124) and Chapter 5 – Evolution (p. 173-184) in In praise of plants. Timber Press. Portland.
The author began chapter 2 (A Visit to the Landscape of Form) by introducing the concept of form – first with quotes and then through their own words – as well as the difficulties of considering form and why these difficulties occur. They then discussed the importance of form, especially compared to quantitative analysis, before going on to provide background information on plants and animals with regards to energy, surface area, volume, and growth. The other factors of determining form – spatial structure, symmetry, and scale – were also discussed. Chapter 5 (Evolution) also started off with quotes, but then went on to deal with the evolution of plants and animals with respect to their generations.
The essence of this story is to compare the forms and evolution of plants and animals throughout their lives.
I thought that it was quite neat of the author, Halle, to start the chapters with quotes from other experts (p. 41 and 173) as they provided other peoples thoughts on the different subjects while introducing them.
I also enjoyed the fact that the author tended to lead into the next section quite well – such as the ending sentence of the ‘Whence Form?’ section: “So that the discussion may occur in the proper context, it is necessary to recall that plants and animals rely on different sources of energy” (p. 43), which came directly before the ‘Capturing Energy’ section. Another example of this (out of many such examples) can be found in Chapter 5: “…all plants possess two genetically different generations, one haploid and the other diploid. And animals? On this point they are much simpler than plants since they have only one generation” (p. 181) which occurs directly prior to the ‘One Animal, One Generation’ section. Both these sentences properly conclude the previous sections while introducing the next.
The author tended to provide background information and interesting facts, as well as to back up every point they made – such as when they were discussing how plants obtain energy, that this is done inefficiently, and what causes this process to be inefficient (p. 43). Another fact I, personally, found interesting (since I am interested in visiting Japan sometime in the future) was the one concerning the botanical garden of mosses cared for by monks at the temple of Kokedera, Japan (p. 176). Halle also often gave examples: “Some [animals] profit from an elongated from by hiding among plants – pycnogonids, Phyllopteryx, stick and leave insects,” which I found quite nice as it helps put things in perspective for me (since I now know of some example organisms). Though some background and back up information is nice, the author also spent way too much time on some things that could be summarized – and completely understood – in one sentence; such as the multiple pages (p. 54-89) on plants having radial symmetry with one polarity and animals having bilateral symmetry with two polarities.
The opinion: “Animals are confused plants, turned inside out like a glove, with infolded leaves and roots in their digestive tracts. Plants are fantastic animals, their insides turned out, bearing their entrails like feathers” (p. 50) is quite interesting. I do agree that there are similarities in function between plants outer surfaces and the digestive tract of animals, but, for me, that’s where the similarities end. This sentence is however very descriptive and an interesting way to point out (in bold, capital, 72 pt font) that this similarity is present.
I appreciate when the author uses descriptive words and sentences to help get their point across; such as when discussing the mobility of plants (“…and throws flowers into the air, like pretty white butterflies the blossoms of Campanula or Gaura” (p. 101)) or the time scale of plants – using such words and phrases as “spectacular”, “majestic”, “frenetic”, “fierce swarming”, etc (p.103).
I myself am not a very good writer, but I love reading those people who are, and I also detest grammatical mistakes, especially in published works. I like writing to flow, and I very much dislike when sentences don’t make sense, though I understand that I quite often just read too fast or am in the wrong mindset when reading a sentence to understand it the first time I read it. However, it angers me when I go back to read the sentence again and it still doesn’t make sense! An example of this in this work is the sentence: “Following Thom (1972), Boutot (1993) has shown very well the reasons for …” (p. 41), which should have said ‘Thom (1972) and Boutot (1993) have shown very well the reasons for …” Another example occurs in the first part of this sentence “Fundamentally a volume, an animal easily accommodates the effects of growth; little change in the form is required” (p.50) also doesn’t make sense; and to be completely honest, I’m not sure what it was supposed to say either. I suppose that since this was translated from the original French text, it makes sense that there would be some difficulties in the translation process; however, this is a published book, and I have very minimal respect for published works that have mistakes in them (or that are not written well).
Another annoyance that I found was not expanding upon analogies and explaining them. I admit that I’m not fully understanding the concept of form, and what the author is mentioning and discussing about it; however, I don’t like that Halle didn’t expand upon and explain the analogy with the truffles under the oak (“The reader who is interested in birth, growth, and death will find them here associated with form, like truffles beneath an oak.” (p. 42)) as I don’t understand what this analogy has to do with “form [as] the product of growth” (p.42).
I disliked the randomness of the sentence: “Ribald zoological metaphors often make fun of such organs: the eggplant, the obvious sexual anatomical associations of the double coconut (Lodoicea maldivica), nuts as slang for testicles, acorns (gland is French for acorn and the word has a sexual connotation), etc” (p.46). I do not understand why this was included, was the author trying to add humour into the subject of some plants having special structures under protective sheathes? To me it just seemed to be an inappropriate topic to include. And to state after this that plants are smart – “Not too stupid” (p.46) – for doing this? First of all, plants do not have brains, and secondly there is no reason for plants to make “evocations of animal form” (p. 46), it’s just human’s ‘dirty’ minds that come up with such associations. And, are we really that vain as to think that way of plants; that they would make such evocations?
The randomness of “Thus, when you encounter a loudmouth, tell him that anyone who produces an anus before a mouth, and thus farts before being able to speak, should be more modest. Yes, animals are strange” (p. 88), is a little more humorous, and thus a little more appreciated (from my point of view). However, the stories of Oldeman’s (1974) nightmare of his fingers and feet forming colonies (p. 110) and Szent-György’s fishing trips (“… he always used a big hook, because although he knew he would catch nothing, he found it much more interesting not to catch the big fish than not to catch only the little ones” (p. 103)), proved to be much more entertaining.
I have always found it interesting how when exceptions occur that contradict a previously thought idea, that people still find ways around them to keep the same idea (scientists can’t be wrong, can they?). For example, Halle stated, with regards to forms with one polarity and radial symmetry, that “There are also a few exceptions among the mobile animals … [which] also have this form, but they are ancestral to sessile groups” and “Some sessile animals … do not have this form, but they are related to mobile groups” (p. 69). I, myself, am a Christian – who doesn’t believe in evolution – and I just love learning about “exceptions” that God created to rules that scientists have come up with and how scientists then try to explain their way out of things so that their theories still hold true. For me, it is extremely annoying how evolution is assumed to be truth in the scientific world; however occurrences like these are very entertaining.
I found part of the author’s quotes of Michel Luneau concerning trees – “Our internal organization recognizes neither God nor a master” (p. 99); “It is a Jacobin God who has created humans, a ponderous God, jealous, authoritarian, cop-like, fierce, holding tightly onto his power, zealously intervening in his omnipotence” (p. 100) – and the author’s insistence that “Biological evolution is a reality to which all living beings are subject, and no serious biologist would dream of questioning it” (p. 173) offensive. How can (and why do) scientists assume that everyone involved in the realm of science believes in evolution and does not believe in the existence of a God. It’s quite irksome! Though I can see how using those first phrases of Michel Luneau do emphasize what the author was trying to say about the differing structures of plants and animals.
I found the discussion of the germ being potentially immortal and the soma being “condemned to disappear” (p. 183) quite strange. Just because the germ becomes the sexual organs does not mean that they are “immortal”; they would not be able to survive without the soma. It is, however, interesting that the environment only influences the soma, thus characteristics acquired from this are not inheritable.
This reading argues that form (being qualitative) is more important than quantitative studies. Due to being a chemist, my thinking process disagrees with this as to properly compare and discuss forms there must be quantitative ways of comparing this information. However, I view qualitative and quantitative information to be two sides of the same story, where neither side provides all the information; thus these two types are both essential in order to fully understand concepts.
This reading was very informative on the forms of plants and animals – their similarities and their differences – though it was a bit extensive in some areas (as already discussed). I think that the larger story of this piece it to just understand how living beings function.
No comments:
Post a Comment