But a still higher merit perhaps can be claimed for De Candolle,
inasmuch as he not only like Jussieu elaborated the system and its
fundamental principles in his descriptive works, but developed the
theory, the laws of natural classification, with a clearness and
depth such as no one before him had displayed. To this purpose he
applied morphological researches, which in profundity and wealth of
thought and in the fruitfulness of their results for the whole domain
of systematic botany far surpassed all that Linnaeus and Jussieu had
accomplished, and show us that while engaged in his splendid labours
in descriptive botany he had caught during his ten years’ residence
in Paris the true spirit of modern investigation of nature, as it had
been developed by the French naturalists of the end of the previous
century. Scarcely a trace is to be found in De Candolle of the
scholasticism of Cesalpino and Linnaeus, which occasionally makes its
appearance even in Jussieu. For instance, he dealt with morphology as
essentially the doctrine of the symmetry of form in plants, that is, he
found the basis of morphological examination in the relative position
and numbers of the organs, disregarding their physico-physiological
properties as of no account from the morphological point of view. He
was therefore the first who recognised the remarkable discordance
between the morphological characters of organs, which are of value
for systematic purposes, and their physiological adaptations to the
conditions of life, though it must at the same time be acknowledged,
that he did not consistently carry out this principle, but committed
grave offences against it in laying down his own system. It is a point
of the highest interest in De Candolle’s morphological speculations,
that he was the first who endeavoured to refer certain relations of
number and form to definite causes, and thus to distinguish what is
primary and important in the symmetry of plants from merely secondary
variations, as is seen in his doctrine of the abortion and adherence
of organs. In these distinctions De Candolle laid the foundation of
morphological views, which, though now modified to some extent, do
still contain the chief elements of morphology and the natural system;
but his morphological speculations were confined to the domain of
the Phanerogams, and chiefly advanced the theory of the flower; a
morphology of the Cryptogams was as little to be thought of in the
condition of microscopy before 1820, as the application of the history
of development to the establishment of morphological theories.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account