Planting ldeas in the Schools

Our review (Coen and Carpenter, 1993) describes how both the similarities and differences between flowers and shoots can be explained by the action of a set of genes modifying a common growth plan. This does not imply that flowers and shoots are directly derived from one another or that they serve the same function or that they express all of the same genes. We would also like to point out that it is very misleading to claim that Goethe denied sexuality in plants because it did not fit with his theory. He only carne to seriously question sexuality in plants 14 years after publication of his theory of metamorphosis after a conversation with F.J. Schelver. On hearing Schelver‘s doubts about the theory of sexuality, Goethe (1820) was surprised: “In my mature studies l had religiously accepted the dogma of sexuality in plants and was, therefore, taken aback now to hear a concept directly opposed to my own.” It is clear that Goethe, quite correctly, did not feel that sexuality in plants was incompatible with his theory of metamorphosis even though he was later attracted by Schelver’s new scheme. ‘Accustomed as I had always been to preserve complete flexibility in my application of metamorphosis, I likewise found this [Schelver‘s] viewpoint not uncomfortable, although at the same time I could not immediately relinquish the other” (Goethe, 1820).