Generation of 3-dimensional plant bodies by double wall map and stereomap systems
- 130 Downloads
The seven described archetypes of development (Table 1) cover all developmental possibilities for systems with parity and a unique cell boundary length of 4, 5, or 6 (column (a)). The geometrical constraints given by the quantification of wall lengths according to the number of segments of which they are composed, lead in some cases to 3-dimensional plant bodies described by the cellular arrangement in their epidermis. All archetypes exhibit very common botanical features. Real organisms differ essentially from archetypical ones by non uniform lifespans of cells and finite mitotic activity of most cells. The relationship between maps respecting various lifespans and the corresponding archetype will be the object of a separate publication.
Stereomaps, representing double wall regions in 3-dimensional space, are somewhat difficult to interpret geometrically. In the case of systems with parity, the upcoming constraints, given by the edge length specification, will very often lead to impossibilities, as not any more dimension is available. In this case, cells become either smaller or stop to divide. This is a typical case of division stop under geometrical constraint (cf. A. Paz, this volume).
KeywordsCell Boundary Growth Center Boundary Segment Identical Boundary Division Rule
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.O. Schüepp (1966)-Meristeme; Birkhäuser Vlg, Basel.Google Scholar
- 2.K.J. Dormer (1980)-Fundamental tissue geometry for biologists; Cambridge Univ.Pr.Google Scholar
- 3.H.B. & J. Lück (1978) — Proc.Int.Symp.on Math.Topics in Biol.,Res.Inst.Math.; Kyoto:174–185.Google Scholar
- 4.J. Lück & H.B. Lück (1979)-in ‘Graph grammars and their applications to computer science and biology', V.Claus,H.Ehrig & G.Rozenberg,eds,Lect.Notes Comp.Sc.;Springer Vlg Heidelberg-New-York, 73:284–300.Google Scholar
- 5.H.B. Lück & J. Lück (1981)-in 'Actes ler Sém.de l'Ecole de Biol.théor'., CNRS-ENS, H.LeGuyader & Th. Moulin,eds;ENSTA,Paris; 373–398.Google Scholar
- 6.H.B. & J. Lück (1982)-Ber.dtsch.Bot.Ges. 95(3).Google Scholar
- 7.H.B. Lück & J. Lück (1982)-Sec.World Conf.on Math.at the Serv.on Man,Las Palmas 1: 457–466.Google Scholar
- 8.J. Lück & H.B. Lück (1982)-‘Actes 2ème Sém.de l'Ecole de Biol.Théor.,CNRS-ENS,H.LeGuyader,ed.;ENSTA,Paris.Google Scholar
- 9.K. Esau (1953)-Plant anatomy; Wiley, New-York.Google Scholar
- 10.A. Rosenfeld & J.P. Strong (1971)-Software Ingineering 2: 227–239.Google Scholar
- 11.J.M. Carlyle, S. Greibach & A. Paz (1974)-Proc.15th Ann.Symp.Switch.Autom.Theory; 1–12.Google Scholar
- 12.A. Lindenmayer & G. Rozenberg (1979)-in cf.¦4¦': 301–316.Google Scholar
- 13.K. Nyrup & B. Mayoh (1979)-in cf.¦4¦': 331–340.Google Scholar
- 14.J. Lück & H.B. Lück (1981)-cf.¦5.Google Scholar
- 15.J. Lück, A. Lindenmayer & H.B. Lück (1982)-(to appear).Google Scholar
- 16.G. Rozenberg & A. Salomaa (1980)-The mathematical theory of L systems; Acad.Pr.Google Scholar
- 17.P. Kornmann (1965)-Helgol.wiss. Meeresunters. 12:219–238.Google Scholar
- 18.P. Kornmann & P.-H. Sahling (1977)-Helgol.wiss.Meeresunters. 29:1–289.Google Scholar