Construction morphology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The construction morphology (from the Greek μορφή, morphé = shape, form and λόγος, lógos = word, doctrine, reason) is the study of the structure , the form and the creation of form as well as the functioning of the organisms . It is thus superordinate to the functional morphology in that various findings of functional morphological investigations (e.g. individual organs) are integrated into the overall constructive organism consideration of the construction morphology. The term “construction morphology” was coined by Hermann Weber in the 1950s.

The construction morphology was later further developed by the Tübingen paleontologist Adolf Seilacher and the Frankfurt biologist Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann into independent research methods for paleontology and biology. A popular variant of construction morphology is bionics , which uses the form, structure and functionality of organisms to inspire apparatus technology, but ultimately makes little contribution to the elucidation of original construction-biological questions.

The term "construction morphology" is often used as a universal term for a whole range of different research approaches that deal in a broader sense with the structure and structure of organisms. The choice of the term “construction morphology” does not always make sense. The concepts of Hermann Weber, Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann and Adolf Seilacher are to be counted among the construction morphologies in the narrower sense , because they allow reconstructions of evolutionary courses instead of sticking to the construction description of recent or fossil organisms. Related concepts are different approaches of functional morphology , functional morphology / anatomy and biomechanics , and recently also the constructal theory of organisms.

Construction morphology by Hermann Weber

The work of the Tübingen entomologist Hermann Weber occupies a key position for today's construction morphological concepts. He was the first to coined the term construction morphology by criticizing classical morphology and pointing out that morphology should not only be a method of comparison, but should go beyond description and comparison. Morphological research, if it wants to retain its validity as an independent discipline, must examine the dynamics of an organism - i. H. Its ontogenetic and evolutionary-historical becoming - just as consider the functional relationships of individual structures in the overall association of a living being.

Max Hartmann writes the following comment in the foreword to Weber's 1958 - posthumously - work:

“In these two parts of the manuscript, not only are the philosophical (scientific-theoretical) foundations of morphology and the related other biological sub-areas clearly and sharply analyzed, the necessary terms unambiguously worded and defined, the many existing ambiguities and contradictions clarified and cleared up, but rather at the same time, the necessary relationships with other biological disciplines, which must not be broken off, are correctly shown and clearly delimited. Furthermore, from a superior, clean philosophical point of view, these statements contain an albeit ruthless, yet noble and just critical assessment of the contradicting representations of idealistic and evolutionary morphology that emerged in the early 19th and 20th centuries. "

Weber's research concept was largely ignored in biology and palaeontology and did not trigger the redefinition he wanted. Only Adolf Seilacher and Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann took up Weber's suggestions in their own construction morphological concepts. Due to Weber's early death, he was unable to further develop his research approach himself. Today, the fragmentary nature of his texts also makes it difficult to understand the proposed working methods.

Construction morphology by Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann

The construction morphology of Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann , also known as "hydraulic theory", is the theory of the shape and the mechanisms of shape generation in living beings. It leads to an understanding of living beings as functional wholes, namely as operationally closed, energy-converting hydraulic units. Gutmann's construction morphology ultimately deals with a question that cannot be answered with the classic morphological methods of pure description, namely: How is a special body shape created with the available materials, and how are changes in shape achieved through certain movement patterns?

As a result of a construction morphological analysis, a model-theoretical representation of the anatomical structures is obtained in a seamless and force-fitting structure that takes into account the mechanisms of shape generation and movement dynamics. This so-called organism model is neither a simplification nor a representation of the living being examined, but rather - in the epistemological sense - a model for dealing with very specific questions.

According to Gutmann, it is only through such a model that the scientific subject matter and its scope of application are determined (or, in scientific-theoretical terms: constituted). The constitution of organisms as hydraulic, operationally closed energy-converting systems serves to examine and represent the interaction of anatomical structures in a hydraulic system. From here it is possible to make statements about the evolutionary emergence of the organismic constructions under consideration, as these cannot have arisen in any way: Every proposed intermediate form must have been viable, which can be justified within the construction-morphological argumentation (e.g. how did the proposed intermediate form move how did they eat them, etc.).

At the center of this construction morphological approach are:

  • the principles of body hydraulics and hydraulic shape determination
  • the materials that make up the body and anatomical structures
  • the body shape and the interaction of the anatomical structures
  • the mechanisms of energy conversion
  • the organism as a functional whole.

Construction morphology by Adolf Seilacher

The construction morphology of Adolf Seilacher is also in the tradition of Herrmann Weber's concept. With his further development of the structural consideration, Seilacher particularly included non-adaptive factors in the morphological analysis. This goes beyond the mere comparison of structures. The shape and appearance of a living being or the hard parts it produces are essentially influenced by three factors: a historical- phylogenetic factor, an ecological-adaptive factor and a structural engineering factor.

The historical-phylogenetic factor (historical constraint) states that every structure has a long history of evolution behind it. The possible adjustments are therefore limited. An example may make this clear: brachiopods and mussels each have two shell flaps. In the articulate brachiopods, the two shell flaps are formed by a single mantle groove at the edges of the shell. All evolutionary changes must start from this configuration. Mussels, on the other hand, form their shells from two grooves along the edge of the coat. In contrast to the brachiopods, they had the opportunity to develop siphons from this double mantle channel. More recently, this aspect of the limited adaptability has been taken up again by the so-called constructal theory of the authors Adrian Bejan and James H. Marden and pointed out to the influence of construction principles on evolution.

The ecological-adaptive factor (functional constraint, or adaptational constraint) is at the center of every function-morphological analysis, which also plays a central role at Seilacher. This factor has the effect that a structure is designed in such a way that it can optimally carry out its function (= task in a certain environmental context).

The constructional aspect (constructional constraint) finally relates to morphological pattern or structures are formed as a necessary consequence of the construction material used, or as a consequence of morphogenetic manufacturing processes. Seilacher called this fabricational noise . The growth pattern of a mussel shell is inevitably formed when lime is formed in batches from the edge of the mantle. This can be easily illustrated in an analogy experiment: If you let liquid candle wax slowly drip into a bowl of water, a very specific pattern is created, which in this specific case even resembles the growth strips on a mussel shell. The structural engineering aspect makes it clear that a number of typologically used features are actually manufacturing engineering necessities. To what extent such “features” then permit reliable statements about kinship or phylogenetic relationships appears more than doubtful against the background of these considerations.

The central conclusion of Seilacher is that organisms cannot be optimal constructions, but - because all the aforementioned factors act simultaneously - a body construction can only be as optimal as the simultaneous effect of the various factors on morphogenesis allows.

By David M. Raup was rope Aher concept of construction morphology, which is called in English-speaking mostly as 'Constructional Morphology', extended by two factors, namely the random ( 'chance') and individual adaptations to specific conditions ( 'phenotypic response' ). Again, these two factors are intended to prevent a structure from assuming the optimal shape for the performance of a task.

Seen as a whole, Seilacher's concept is less a doctrine of the body structure (the structural structure) of an organism than a doctrine of the morphogenetic influences on the appearance of the existing structures of an organism, especially its hard parts. That is why Seilacher also formulated the term 'morpho-dynamics', which should bring the 'manufacturing aspect' more to the fore. It is also due to this that the term 'organismic construction' often 'refers to structures built by organisms' (lime substrates, etc.), and not - as was suggested in the context of Gutmann's conception - the special, mechanically coherent structure of a living being . There is no independent organism concept in Seilacher's construction morphology. He regards the organism as a 'black box' on which the above-mentioned factors act during morphogenesis and ultimately to the respective results, i.e. H. the found hard part constructions. For paleontological questions, in the context of which the concept was developed, this approach is of great value, as it allows one to concentrate on the fossil structures that can be found and to determine their morphodynamic formation conditions. The work that was created in the context of Seilacher's school of morphodynamics provides explanations and framework conditions for the evolutionary development and the suitability of certain construction methods of hard parts down to the microscopic level.

Remarks

  1. For details see Weber 1958
  2. See Schmidt-Kittler and Vogel 1991

Publications

  • H. Weber: construction morphology. In: Zool. Jahrb. Dept. General Zool. Phys. Animals. 1958, 68: pp. 1-112.
  • N. Schmidt-Kittler, K. Vogel (Ed.): Constructional Morphology and Evolution. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1991, ISBN 3-540-53279-X .

Web links