Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 62. (Budapest 1970)

Fekete, G. ; Szujkó-Lacza, J.: A survey of the plant life-form systems and the respective research approaches, II.

Growth form investigations A completely other approach in the study of community structure is encountered in Western European and English literature. The starting point of these investigations appears to be WARMING'S (1909) concept involving the term growth form for the architecture of the supraterranean shoots (in spite of the fact that WARMING still used the terms growth form and life form as synonyms). In their life-form system, COCKAYNE (1919) and ALLAN (1928) distinguish the groups of trees, shrubs, grasses and semiligneous plants, lianes, epiphytes, and parasites. The terms growth-form and life-form are used alternatively by these two authors. Using COCKAYNE'S and ALLAN'S system, SKOTTSBERG (1926) described the plant associations of the Juan Fernandez Islands. TANSLEY and CHIPP (1926) apply the concept growth form from new points of view (to a certain rate) and by the delineation of a new problem, not quite synonymous with the term life-form. As they write: "It is necessary to employ other classifications alongside that of RAUNKIAER, and the best results are likely to be achieved by the use of extended systems of classifying growth form, developed independently for each study, based upon characters which are observed in the field to be of importance in the communities examined." These two authors propose to use the growth forms in association studies and not for the description of the general physiognomy of vegetation. Du RIETZ (1931) constructed a significant growth form compilation, based on WARMING'S concept. Du RIETZ'S merits lie in having compiled and expounded the earlier life-form systems, mostly in the chronological order, with occasional remarks on the several views concerning the life-forms. He is a critic with a comparatively wide range of vision. Also, he created a life-form system, a compilation based on the results of RAUNKIAER, WARMING, COCKAYNE, and others. He states that: "While some authors accept the principle that life form should be founded only upon epharmonic characters, other authors claim that physiognomic characters should be used." In this context, he writes further: "For anybody used to the inductive method of modern sociological ecology it must also be quite clear that only life forms delimited independently of any adaptation theory can be of any use at all as a unit for the inductive study of the adaptation problem and of the actual correlation between life-form and environment." He contends that a physiognomic characterization of vegetation is possible from several points of view. He sets forth the more important approaches of classification — on all of which a system of the plant forms can duly be erected. They are: 1. Main life-forms (Grundformen); their description is based on the general physiognomy of plants, primarily on their respective heights; 2. Growth forms, a concept founded on the architecture of the shoots; 3. Periodicity life-forms, based on the periodicity of the vegetative organs; 4. Bud-height life forms, as applied in Raunkiaer's sense; 5. Bud-type life-forms, founded on the structure and the means of hibernation of the buds, in accordance with RAUNKIAER'S system; 6. Leaf life forms, based on the diverse characteristics of the leaves. Du RIETZ remarks that it is also possible to construct a classification of plants by their roots. Du RIETZ elaborated his own system within the frames of the Main Life-Forms (in the chapter on Growth Forms System), for the main stem types of the flowering plants. His units are: Geocorms, comprising all plants having subterranean shoots;