Ideal ( Geometrical ) Types and EpistemoIogies of Morphology

When in 1867 botanists Carl Nageli and Simon Schwendener published their work on the microscope and its usage, they warned that using this optical device would never lead to a thorough comprehension of the observed the microscope could only present a corrupted picture of the object. Since the knowledge gained could never transcend the "received impression" of the beholder, there was "no truth fimher advanced than a relative natural truth.'" Niigeli and Schwendener held that the same standards of perception were valid for all kinds of observation of nature, and the glance through the lens of the microscope in the end only complicated the question of subjective perception. The visual device introduced additional problems of aberration from true perception, since besides the general virtues of the naturalist, correct judgment and full scientific comprehension of the object, technical connoisseurship was needed. Drawing the observed objects provided further difficulties, even if the aim was to merely reproduce the received impression, or if tools could be used to help the less skillfill draftsmen amongst the scientists: the use of these demanded conscientiousness, dexterity, and careful training. Yet though Niigeli and Schwendener reminded their readers not simply to rely on technical devices since they only increased the epistemological problems of perceiving with the naked eye, they advocated principles of observation and representation that had broken with early nineteenth century visual regimes. Representations of nature were not necessarily to be judged by comparing them to the observed objects other criteria were