In Praise of Plants

The following posting is a freewrite critique on the points raised and writing style presented in Chapters 2 and 5 of the very interesting book entitled "In Praise of Plants".

"In Praise of Plants"
Written by Francis Halle.
Translated from French by David Lee.
Published in 2002 by Timber Press in Portland, Oregon.

Covering the content found in:
Chapter 2: A Visit to the Landscape of Form, pages 41 to 124, and
Chapter 5: Evolution, pages 173 to 184


“In Praise of Plants” provides a compelling argument as to why plants should be given an equal or superior status to animals in the often animal-dominated worlds of science and society. From this book, our assigned readings consisted of Chapter 2 in full (p 41 to 124) and the first eleven pages of Chapter 5 (p 173 to 184).

In Chapter 2, the many differences in body form between plants and animals were described in vivid detail. In this chapter, three overall points were made. Firstly, “plants are immense surfaces” (p44), whereas “animals are … volumes covered by small external surfaces” (p47), albeit with large internal surfaces (p47). According to Halle, this difference is a direct result of how members of each Kingdom collect energy (p43). A second point made was that plants in general are vertical-growing and radially symmetrical (p69), while animals predominate the horizontal and are bilaterally symmetrical (p73). Finally, his third point is that plants undergo indeterminate growth and will continue to grow throughout their life, whereas most animals do not; most mobile critters have a pre-determined maximum body size (p97).

In the first 11 pages of Chapter 5, the author declares that plants and animals are not affect by evolutionary pressures in the same way and that this difference is due to the manner in which plants and animals reproduce (p173). Specifically, for every lifecycle plants go through, two separate generations are required – the diploid sporophyte and the haploid gametophyte (p176). Furthermore, there is no specific “somatic cell line” or “gametic cell line” in plants – all somatic tissues are potentially gametic, and all gametic tissues are potentially somatic, depending on what factors are present (p184). In animals, this is unheard of! Indeed, in animals, the somatic and gametic cell lines are distinct and separate. Also, only one diploid generation is required per lifecycle (p181).

Structurally, I thought this book was well-written with the popular audience in mind (albeit initially only those able to read French) and that it flowed quite well. The content and points made throughout are very interesting and provide a unique way of looking at the world of plants. Indeed, in many cases I had never before thought about plants the way Halle describes them until I read this book! A very dramatic example is how Halle states that “Animals are confused plants, turned inside out like a glove… [and] Plants are fantastic animals, their insides turned out, bearing their entrails like feathers” (p50). This is such a neat way of looking at the differing biological features of plants and animals!

I thought the entire book is well-structured with subtle humor woven throughout, making the writing very persuasive and clear. Furthermore, I liked how Halle included quotes and observations that other authors and scholars have made about plants – from Pliny to Darwin to numerous recent scientific papers. By including their thoughts in almost every paragraph, I thought that Halle made his argument even more persuasive, showing that he is not the only one who talking about and looking at plants in such a unique way! And, in case you did not understand the written content, many large and well-drawn illustrations make his point even more clear.

Overall I found the writing to be generally understandable and that the main points for each section were made very clear… so exceptionally clear that, in one case, Halle spends nearly 25 pages to get his point across that plants grow vertical and are radially symmetrical, whereas animals are horizontal and bilaterally symmetrical (p53 to 77). Not surprisingly, I found this to be a little tedious. Another part of the writing that I did not like was how in many cases, complex or uncommon words are used – and no definitions were given. For example, “zenith” (p57), “nadir” (p57), “polarity” (p59), “Echinoderms” (p77) and “lianas” (p99) are just a few.

While I am not entirely sure if I now believe that plants are superior to animals, I certainly will view plants quite differently having now read this book! The differences between these two kingdoms that really stuck me were how plants grow vertically and animals grow horizontally, and how plants are essentially surfaces whereas animals are essentially volumes. I found that these two points provided a much more rational way to define the difference between animals and plants - far better than the definition that animals don’t have chlorophyll or that plants cannot pick up their roots and move around*.

*Like an Ent from the Lord of The Rings. But then… the real question is - are Ents animals or plants?!?!