CLASSICAL MORPHOLOGY AND CONTINUUM MORPHOLOGY - OPPOSITION AND CONTINUUM

Classical plant morphology still provides the conceptual framework for most phytomorphological investigations and highly relevant concepts a nd data for other botanical disciplines such as plant morphogenesis, m olecular genetics, ecology, systematics, evolutionary plant biology, e tc. Typical classical morphology is categorical, i.e. the diversity of plant form is reduced to mutually exclusive morphological categories such as root, shoot, stem (caulome), leaf (phyllome), and trichome. In contrast, continuum morphology established a morphological continuum between all these categories. As a consequence, homology becomes a mat ter of degree. Hence, the difference between continuum morphology and classical morphology is striking. Nonetheless, the two approaches and views need not be seen as opposed to each other. They can be considere d complementary: classical morphology emphasizing the difference betwe en typical representatives of morphological categories and continuum m orphology stressing the continuum between these fuzzy categories. Furt hermore, if the morphological categories are interpreted as extreme ty pes, which by definition are fuzzy and continuous with each other, the n classical morphology becomes continuum morphology. If such reinterpr etation occurs only to some extent, intermediate positions between typ ical classical morphology and continuum morphology result. Examples of various intermediate positions indicate that a continuum exists betwe en typical classical morphology and continuum morphology. Hence, there is not only a continuum between morphological categories but also bet ween approaches to and views of the held of plant morphology. Conseque nces of this reconciliation are briefly discussed.