Kaszab Zoltán (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 64. (Budapest 1972)
Szujkó-Lacza, J. ; Fekete, G.: A survey of the plant life-form systems and the respective research approaches IV. Taxonomic aspects of the life-form protection of the embryonal and meristematic tissues in the dormancy stage
period of specific evolution, dated by the end of the glaciations, produced rather Mesophanerophytes instead of Chamaephytes. Accordingly, these secondary lifeforms approach those of the ancestral Salix taxa, with, however, considerably more reduced fertile organs. Paleobotanical data agree well with these evolutional and areogeographical inferences. Of the recent 491 Salix species 41 per cent display the Microphanerophyton life-form. The majority of the recent species and species-groups of the genus persisted through several geological ages. According to HANSEN (1. c), Mesophanerophytes predominated in the Paleogene, Microphanerophytes in the Neogene, and Nanophanerophytes to Chamaephytes in the Quaternary. No herbaceous or non-woody forms occur in the genus Salix. It is a frequent case that if some species of a genus are able to survive the unfavourable season in a woody form, no graminiform life-form evolves (e.g. : Betulaceae, Fagaceae, Myricaceae, Salicaceae, Thymeleaceae, Tiliaceae, Aceraceae, Aquifoliaceae, Rhamnaceae. Empetraceae, Ericaceae; cf. SCHARFETTER, I.e.). c. The widest interpretation of the life-form Already the early critics of RAUNKIAER and his life-form system raised the objection that, for instance, the cactiform plants are not included in his system. They put it down to the assumption that RAUNKIAER established the life-form categories with respect to the vegetation of the Northern Hemisphere, and that later, in the elaboration of the phytoclimates, he had similarly evaded the question. However, on the basis of RAUNKIAER'S life-form concept, namely the adaptation of the plant to the unfavourable season by the protection of its buds, the alleged fault disappears. Failures to understand and to neglect RATJNKIAER'S life-form concept persist to our very days. A good example in this respect is Du RIETZ'S (1931) work. (His basic conception and system was cited in one of our preceding papers; FEKETE — SZUJKÓ-LACZA, 1970). Quite mistakenly, common with several other authors cited by him, Du RIETZ regards characteristic and extreme habits also as lifeforms — phenomena which are actually growth forms. Without a suitable new nomenclature and without distinguishing between the functional and non-functional stages of the plant, he constructs a system in which the life-form concept is characterized as follows : "Main life form is ... a designation type based upon the general physiognomy of the plants during the height of their annual vegetation period, without regard to any details in their morphological structure or to their way of perduring the unfavourable season." ANDREÁNSZKY (1954) believed to have established the entomophagous Sarraceniales and the related taxa of the Podostemonales series, adapted to aquatic habits, by their "life-form". Life-form in the Sarraceniales means the method of acquiring the amino-acids (feeding-specialty : the simultaneous presence of the heterotrophic and eutotrophic means of feeding), in the Podostemonales the aquatic way of life. On the other hand, ANDREÁNSZKY'S endeavour to point out the role of the enviroment in shaping stature and habit, and the taxonomic value of stature beside that of the generative organs, is worthy of note. He rightfully impeaches taxonomists as biased in preferring the value of the generative organs at any price, and neglecting the taxonomic importance of habit. As shown by his examples, this one-sided standpoint considerably affected the correct interpretation of the evolution and phylogeny of the families and genera. In his life-form concept, however,
