The nature of morphology

Vincent S. Scholze
Laboratory for Nematology, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8123, NL- 6700 ES Wageningen,
the Netherlands

“Atoms cannot form materials by simple addition or ordering. A

mysterious independence encloses them and binds them together; our
mind meets it with a rebuff, but has to make way for it in the end.”

(Teilhard de Chardin, 1958 - translated)

Abstract

Science has to be more open for alternative visions and methods in order to understand
more about life and its phenomenons. Sheldrake (1994) formed an alternative theory:
the hypothesis of formative causation. This can be regarded as a principle behind
morphology. From this point of view a closer look is taken on both levels of morphology
and DNA of nematodes in the family Rhabditidae. Sheldrake’s theory is illustrated with
examples from studies on these nematodes and it is extended with the influences of
consciousness and the soul. The assumption has been made that evolution has also a
metaphysical aspect besides a physical one. Evolution, of both morphology and
consciousness, has a major effect on the soul. This vision can possibly lead to a better
understanding of morphology and the action of genes.

Keywords: hypothesis of formative causation; morphogenetic fields; morphic units;

Rhabditidae (Nematoda); phylogeny; morphology; 18S rDNA-sequences; evolution;
consciousness; soul.

Introduction

Most scientists regard organisms as machines. The material aspects of an organism, the
abstractions, are seen as the only aspects. In scientific research, more and more
abstractions are used, like in molecular biology, and people think that they can solve
everything this way.
The deeper one gets into material systems, the more often one realizes the complexity
of matter. By abstraction, science can understand the material aspects and analyse them
very accurately, but solutions in a larger connection are often hard to find. Science only
looks at the material systems (quantity) and tries to find solutions only there. But science
has to realize once that not everything can be solved this way. Science has the aim to
contribute to the knowledge of life and the world around us. In this context it is absurd to
gain that knowledge only through material aspects of systems. Why should we deny the
unexplored realms if we don’t even know what or how they can contribute to our
scientific research?
It turns out that science only knows a small fraction about the organisation within cells,
genetics and the morphology of organisms. Scientists seem to have the idea that if they
get deep enough into the material aspects of systems, they eventually will know the
principles behind al these biological phenomenons. In reality, they will keep on floating
on the surface, while they try to dive deeper and deeper into material systems to reveal
the principles behind it. This can go on forever, but science will still be relatively floating
on the surface. So this is the time to start thinking about the future of science and other

1
possibilities that maybe can give us a more clear and total vision on our subjects of
research.
The English scientist Rupert Sheldrake tried to get science to this and made a new
theory: the hypothesis of formative causation. From the point of view of this hypothesis I
analysed my own subject of research and I shall try to illustrate Sheldrake’s theory with
the results of this analysis.
This paper can be regarded as an example of an alternative view that we could use in
science in order to try to understand more about the principles of life. Therefore it should
totally be regarded as scientific.

The hypothesis of formative causation

The morphology of organisms turns out to be very strictly determined. Until now,
science regards this as the result of the “switching on and off” of certain genes or groups
of genes. According to neo-Darwinism all organisms have their morphology due to
genetic changes that happen by coincidence, followed by natural selection. Organisms
keep the genes that give them a bigger chance to survive.
But even from this point of view there are many questions about the origin of the
characteristic morphology of an organism that remain unanswered. In the first place, it is
unclear why just one certain shape arises from an embryo. This phenomenon cannot be
explained by the growth or expansion of a shape that already exists in the early stages of
the embryo.
There is also an unanswered question about the fact that many developing organisms
are capable of regulation; in other words, if a part of a developing system is removed (or
a part is added), the system will continue to develop until its more or less normal shape
is achieved. Many experiments point out that developing organisms strive after a
morphological aim, and that they have a certain quality that directs them to that aim.
With this quality, many organisms are capable of reaching their morphological aim, even
if parts of their system are removed and the normal development is disturbed.
A third question is a question about regeneration. Organisms are capable of repairing or
replacing damaged parts of their system by regeneration. A well-known example is the
cutting of a earth-worm into several pieces: each piece can develop itself into a full-
grown earth-worm. (Sheldrake, 1994)
Looking at the accurate determination of morphology and the questions on this subject,
Sheldrake came to his hypothesis of formative causation. He summarises it in the
following points (Sheldrake, 1994):

I. Apart from energetic causes known in physics, and apart from the causes that are
the results of energetic fields, there is another type of cause responsible for the
shapes of all material morphic units (sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules,
crystals, quasi-crystalline aggregates, organelles, cells, tissues, organs and
organisms). The shape includes not only the outlines of the outer surface, but also
the inner structure. This causation, the formative causation, creates a spatial
order by changes that are caused by energetic causes. The formative causation
itself is not energetic and it not a result of any fields known in physics.

II. The formative causation depends on morphogenetic fields, structures that have a
morphogenetic effect on material systems. Each type of morphic unit has its own
characteristic morphogenetic field. During the morphogenesis of a certain morphic
unit, one or more of its characteristic parts, that are called the morphic germ, are
included in or surrounded by the morphogenetic field of the whole morphic unit.
This field includes the virtual shape of the morphic unit, that is established as
soon as the correct parts come within its area of effect and are placed at the
places that fits them.

2
III. A certain type of morphogenetic field follows a determined pathway through the
development stages. Such a canalized route is called a chreode. The
morphogenesis can also be accomplished from different morphogenetic germs and
the end shape can also be reached via different pathways, like when regulation
and regeneration is needed. During the cycle of cell growth and the division of
cells, and during the development of the differentiated construction of
multicellular organisms, a succession of morphic events takes place under the
influence of a series of morphogenetic fields.

IV. The characteristic shape of a certain morphic unit is determined by the shapes of
preceding systems, that affect it through space and time, under a process that is
called morphic resonance. This effect takes place through the morphogenetic field
and is dependent on the three-dimensional shape of the vibration pattern of the
system. Morphic resonance is, regarding its specificness, analogous to energetic
resonance, but neither can it be explained in terms of a known type of resonance,
nor is there a transmission of energy involved.

V. All similar systems from the past affect a next system through morphic
resonance. It is assumed that this effect is not going down due to space and time.
However, the relative effect of a certain system is going down if the number of
similar systems, that contribute to the morphic resonance, increases.

VI. Morphic resonance of intermediate stages of preceding morphological events

causes that similar next morphogenetic events are canalized by the same
chreodes.

VII. Morphic resonance of systems from the past with a characteristic polarity can only
pass efficient after the morphogenetic germ of a next system has token the
correct polarity. Systems that are asymmetrical in all the three dimensions and
exist in mirror shapes, influence similar systems via morphic resonance, in spite
of the fact that they are each others images.

VIII. Morphogenetic fields are adjustable in absolute size and can, within certain limits,
be scaled. So preceding systems can influence systems with similar shapes
through morphic resonance, even if their absolute sizes are different.

IX. Even after the size is adjusted, the many preceding systems that influence a next
system through morphic resonance are not identical, but they are only similar in
shape. Because of that, their shapes don’t overlap exactly within the
morphogenetic field. The preceding shape that occurs the most, contributes the
largest part, the one that occurs the least, contributes the smallest part to the
morphic resonance; morphogenetic fields are not fixed, but they are displayed by
changes that depend on the coincidental distribution of similar preceding shapes.

X. The morphogenetic fields of morphic units influence the morphogenesis, because

they affect the morphogenetic fields of their composing parts. So the fields of
tissues influence the fields of cells, and the fields of cells influence the fields of
organelles, etc. This action is based on the influence of chances from a higher
level on the chances from a lower level, so it is in fact determined by coincidence.

XI. When the final shape of a morphic unit is established, the continuous affect of the
morphic resonance of similar preceding shapes will stabilize and maintain it. If a
shape keeps on existing, its morphic resonance will contain a contribution of its
own stages from the past. As the system looks more like its own stages from the
past, this morphic resonance shall be exactly tuned and can be of great
importance to maintain the identity of the system.

3
 The hypothesis of formative causation gives an explanation for repeating of shapes, but
it doesn’t explain the origin of the first example of a certain shape. This unique event can
be ascribed to coincidence or to a transcendental creating force. Until now, a choice
between these can only be made on metaphysical arguments.
Sheldrake gives a few examples of experiments that can test his theory. One of these is
an experiment with plants: one takes a new variety of a self-fertilizing crop (the plants
are genetically similar and the are not cross-fertilized with other varieties yet) and one
divides the seeds into two groups. The two groups are sown and grown at two completely
different locations, X and Y, and their morphological characters should be recorded
exactly. Some of the seeds of the original stock should be saved at a low temperature.
After that one should grow a large quantity of plants at location Y. Then a few seeds,
mixed with some of the saved seeds, should be sown at location X. Their morphogenesis
could be influenced by the morphic resonance with the large numbers of genetically
similar plants grown at location Y. They should be more similar with the Y-type
morphology than the original X-type plants. If this shall be the result of the experiment,
then it is a positive evidence for the hypothesis of formative causation, because it is not
explainable in terms of mechanism (Sheldrake, 1994 – translated).

Nematodes

Nematodes are small transparent roundworms and their length varies from 0.5 to 10
mm. Among the metazoa, they form the group with the most individuals; from every five
multicellular animals there are four that belong to the class of the Nematoda. Nematodes
are active when they are in an environment with enough water (above the wilting level of
plants). One cannot imagine a substrate where they not live in. Nematodes occur in soil,
on and in the bottom of any kind of lake, river or sea, in plants, in animals and in fact
everywhere where organic matter is decomposed (Bongers, 1994).

Rhabditidae (Nematoda)

Within the class of Nematoda there are many families, and one of them is the family
Rhabditidae. This family consists of bacteria-feeding nematodes and some species are
associated with certain insects, rodents or specific locations (habitats). Rhabditidae is a
vexed family, because the species are hard to discriminate on morphological characters.
Almost every taxonomist who works with Rhabditidae has another classification. There
are two taxonomists who have extreme classifications. The Hungarian taxonomist
Andrássy devides the family into 7 subfamilies and 24 genera (Andrássy, 1976). In the
other extreme is Sudhaus, a German taxonomist, who devides the family of Rhabditidae
into 4 genera and 18 subgenera (Sudhaus, 1976). Most taxonomists are between these
extremes (Bongers, pers. comm.). This illustrates how difficult it can be to classify the
species within the Rhabditidae on morphological characters and to get a consensus about
it.
In this paper the classification of Sudhaus (1976) will be used, with the name of the
subgenus between brackets.
Figure 1 shows a picture of the first described Rhabditidae species as seen under a light
microscope. A characteristic of the Rhabditidae is the mouth cavity, which is like a tube
(fig. 2b). Males have a so-called bursa copulatrix (or just bursa) (fig. 3a). This is an
organ that can hold the female during copulation. The spicules are the male copulatory
organs (fig. 3a) which are an important character for identification. The position of the
vulva (fig. 3b) is an important character of females.

4
 head tail

Figure 1: Rhabditis (Rhabditis) terricola Dujardin, 1845;

female, length 1.2 – 2.0 mm.
(from Bongers, 1994)

Figure 2: four types of mouth cavities; a and b are bacteria-feeders, c is a carnivore and d is a plant
parasite. Type b is the typical tube-shaped mouth cavity that is characteristic for Rhabditidae species.
(from Bongers, 1994)

Figure 3: male (a) and female (b) tail; 1 = spicules, 2 = bursa,

3 = vulva and 4 = anus. (after Bongers, 1994)

Morphology-based phylogenetic studies on Rhabditidae (Nematoda)

As it is said before, it is hard to discriminate Rhabditidae species on morphological

characters. Phylogenetic studies (studying the evolutionary pattern and trying to make a
classification based on that) can clear some difficulties, but some remain.
Figure 4 on the next page shows some species that are morphological different, within
the Rhabditidae these differences are huge.

5
 A question that is difficult to answer is which morphological characters are primitive
(plesiomorphous) and which morphological characters are derived from those during the
course of evolution (apomorphous). It is good to remind that the pattern and the process
of evolution are different things: the pattern expresses itself in different shapes, that are
created by the process. Morphological characters which are used for identification
(patterns) are mostly plesiomorphous, while phylogeny (processes) is based on
apomorphous characters (Sudhaus, pers. comm.). It can happen that these two types of
characters are mixed. If that happens, mistakes can be made if convergence or
divergence of species has occurred. Convergence has occurred when two species look
very similar, but they are really not even closely related to each other. When two species
are very closely related, but they are morphologically very different, divergence has
occurred.

Figure 4: the head (with mouth

cavity), the female and the male tail of
4 species in the family Rhabditidae:

a = Rhabditis (Cruznema)
tripartita Von Linstow, 1906
b = Rhabditis (Cephaloboides)
paraciliata Goodey, 1943
c = Rhabditis (Mesorhabditis)
monhystera Buetschli, 1873
d = Rhabditis (Pelodera)
parateres Cobb, 1924

(after Bongers, 1994)

Sudhaus (1976) did many studies on the morphology-based phylogeny of Rhabditidae

and his classification is based on them.
The stem species of the Rhabditidae is regarded as a nematode with closed lips, a long
and slender mouth cavity and a conical-shaped tail (Osche, 1952). This is hypothetical,
because no fossil records have been found (yet). Though, it is interesting to see that the
larvae of all species in the family Rhabditidae show these morphological characters. Even
when the adults have totally different morphological characters, the larvae still show the
same morphological characters. Figure 5 gives an example of a difference between a
larva and an adult.

6
 Figure 5: Rhabditis (Rhabditis) strongyloides (A. Schneider,
1860); a = head with mouth cavity of a larva, b = mouth cavity
of an adult. (after Osche, 1952)

DNA-based phylogenetic studies on Rhabditidae (Nematoda)

The development of molecular techniques made it possible to analyse DNA at a routine

base. To study the evolution of morphology better, it is important to develop a molecular
phylogeny that is independent of morphology (Fitch et al., 1995). Fitch et al. (1995)
carried out a molecular analysis of a number of species that represent together six
subgenera of the Rhabditidae. With the discovered 18S rDNA-sequences they constructed
a possible phylogeny which has more similarities with the phylogeny of Sudhaus (1976,
1980, 1993; Sudhaus & Kühne, 1989; Sudhaus & Hooper, 1994) than with the
classification of Andrássy (1976). Though it has to be taken into account that the
molecular phylogeny depends on the used cluster technique (Bongers, pers. comm.).

A B

Figure 6: phylogeny of Rhabditidae: a = according to Sudhaus (1976, 1980, 1993; Sudhaus &
Kühne, 1989; Sudhaus & Hooper, 1994) - based on morphology, b = according to Fitch et al.
(1995) - based on 18S rDNA-sequences, an alternative position for Caenorhabditis is indicated.
(after Fitch & Thomas, 1997)

7
Morphology and DNA

Figure 6 shows that the phylogeny of Fitch et al. (1995) has a similarity with the
phylogeny of Sudhaus (1976, 1980, 1993; Sudhaus & Kühne, 1989; Sudhaus & Hooper,
1994). The subgenera Pelodera and Teratorhabditis have the same pattern. Ofcourse, to
get more insight into the principles of evolution, other (closely related) subgenera have
to be analysed.
The most studied nematode on DNA level is Rhabditis (Caenorhabditis) elegans Maupas,
1899. Fitch et al. (1995) analysed a few species of the subgenus Caenorhabditis. They
found out that nematodes that are very similar in morphology can have a difference on
the molecular level that is five times bigger than the difference between different classes
of fourfooted vertebrates on the same molecule (for instance the difference between
crocodiles and mice) (Fitch & Thomas, 1997).

Morphogenesis and evolution

Lets get back to the hypothesis of formative causation. What role can it play in the
process of evolution? Morphogenesis is a process within the process of evolution by which
the patterns of evolution reveal themselves. Morphogenetic fields could direct the
morphic units to accomplish the morphogenesis.
Morphic units are continuous linked together since the origin of the earth. The aim
seems to have a process of growth in itself, but is this only physical? From here it is
assumed that the hypothesis of formative causation is correct. So the morphogenetic
fields have a non-material nature, just like the formative causation. The process of
growth should also have a metaphysical aspect in itself then. Based on the assumption
that every morphic unit has a metaphysical aspect in itself, the process of evolution can
be regarded as a metaphysical process of growth. This metaphysical aspect can be
labelled as consciousness, so far human beings can be regarded as an example of a
process of growth during the past many million years. Morphic units can link together
then, not only to grow physically, but also to grow in consciousness.
So morphogenetic fields direct the morphic units in order to create consciousness. As the
consciousness grows, more experiences are added to the morphogenetic fields that direct
this consciousness directly and indirectly. These morphogenetic fields direct also the
morphogenesis via the morphic fields. Then the growth in consciousness could also lead
to changes in morphology, which gives feedback on the consciousness via experiences
(like behaviour). In the interactions between morphogenetic fields, morphology and
consciousness, also external stimuli are involved (see fig. 7). Both morphology and
consciousness have a certain way of selection in themselves, and so they evolve together
– they depend on each other.

Figure 7: interactions within the process of

evolution.

8
 With a closer look through the metaphysical eye, a glimpse can be seen of the actual
formative causation, the main principle behind the morphogenetic fields. It is reasonable
to look what is behind the consciousness. Regarding the human being as an example
again, the soul can be found as the origin of the morphogenetic fields. In the context of
the assumed theory the soul should then affect the evolution of both morphology and
consciousness.
Sheldrake (1994) gives an example of European Cuckoo’s:
The young Cuckoo’s are being hatched and fed by birds of another species, so they never
see their own parents as they grow up. At the end of summer the adults (parents) go to
a region in the South of Africa where they stay during winter. About one month later the
young Cuckoo’s meet each other and they fly also to the South of Africa where they unite
with their parents. It is reasonable to say that the young Cuckoo’s recognize each other
and find their parents by their instinct. But what is instinct? Determined by genes or not,
the information could be in the morphogenetic field of the Cuckoo’s. These bird could
have a common morphogenetic field, with their close relatives or with all the European
Cuckoo’s. In this case, a common soul could be attached to that morphogenetic field.
Assumed that individual Cuckoo’s have a smaller consciousness than the common
consciousness, they strive for growth in consciousness. This is the same principle on
which atoms can form molecules. When the experiment with the plants, as mentioned
earlier, gives a positive result for the hypothesis of formative causation, it could be said
that those plants have a common morphogenetic field and therefore also a common
consciousness and soul.
Nematodes are relatively small animals, and according to the given theory it should be
reasonable when nematodes occur in large numbers. The number of nematodes for each
common morphogenetic field with a common soul should be higher than the number of
Cuckoo’s, in order to have a similar growth rate of their consciousness. The fact that
nematodes occur everywhere on earth and that the nematode density in the soil varies
from 2 to 20 million individuals per m2 (Bongers, 1994), supports this theory.
Why is growth of consciousness necessary? Because the soul only wants its
consciousness to evolve in order to get a consciousness that is big enough to surpass all
morphic units and that can resonate together with the largest morphogenetic field of the
universe, which controls everything.

Conclusions

Regarding the phylogenetic studies on the Rhabditidae, both morphological and

molecular, one can wonder if morphology is determined by genes. It has to be taken
into account that we hardly know anything about the nature and action of genes. It is
uncertain if more insight about this can be acquired via a mechanical view or approach. A
number of genes have to be involved in morphogenesis, but morphogenetic fields could
make genetic aberrations or unexplained pattern more understandable. The involved
genes are a possible way to a certain morphology, but they don’t act independently.
Morphogenetic fields could affect also other morphic units than DNA molecules.
Consciousness can also play an important role in the process of morphogenesis, via
complex interactions and feedback on the morphogenetic fields. This could also lead to a
cause of the earlier mentioned convergence and divergence of shapes.
A conspicuous character of Rhabditidae is the similarity of the larvae. In the context of
the hypothesis of formative causation the morphogenetic field of the stem species of the
Rhabditidae can affect all its descendants. The resonance of this field could cause that
that the larvae already have a certain start position in the evolution process of their
consciousness. This start position should be the basis of the common consciousness,
because it widens (itself) slowly.
Also can be concluded that if there is a purposeful growth behind morphology,
morphogenetic fields do not depend on chance, like Sheldrake (1994) assumed, and so
their shape is not coincidental.

9
 There should be done more research on the morphology and genetics of nematodes to
test the hypothesis of formative causation. Maybe it can provide us with a stable theory
(at least for nematodes) that helps us to understand these phenomenons. Until that time
the only thing scientists can do, is to be open for alternative visions and methods in order
to be fair, and to serve the actual aim of science at their best.

References

Andrássy, I., 1976, Evolution as a basis for the systematization of nematodes, Pitman
Publishing, London.
Bongers, T., 1994, De nematoden van Nederland, 2nd edition, KNNV-uitgave nr. 46.
Fitch, D. H. A., B. Bugaj-Gaweda & S. W. Emmons, 1995, 18S ribosomal RNA gene
phylogeney for some Rhabditidae related to Caenorhabditis, Mol. Biol. Evol. 12: 346-
359.
Fitch, D. H. A. & W. K. Thomas, 1997, Evolution, C. elegans II, Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York: 815-850.
Osche, G., 1952, Systematik und Phylogenie der Gattung Rhabditis (Nematoda), Zool.
Jb. Syst. 81: 190-280.
Sheldrake, A. R. 1994, Een nieuwe levenswetenschap (Dutch, translated edition of A New
Science of Life), 3rd edition, Uitgeverij Kosmos – Utrecht/Antwerpen.
Sudhaus, W. 1976, Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Phylogenie, Systematik, Ökologie,
Biologie und Ethologie der Rhabditidae (Nematoda), Zoologica (Stuttgart) 43
(125):1-229.
Sudhaus, W., 1980, Systematisch-phylogenetische und biologisch-ökologische Unter-
suchungen an Rhabditis- (Poikilolaimus-) Arten als Beitrag zu Rassenbildung und
parallelevolution bei Nematoden, Zool. Jb. Syst. 107: 287-343.
Sudhaus, W., 1993, Die mittels symbiontischer Bakterien entomopathogenen
Nematoden-Gattungen Heterorhabditis und Steinernema sind keine Schwestertaxa,
Verh, Deutsch. Zool. Ges. 86: 146.
Sudhaus, W. & D. J. Hooper, 1994, Rhabditis (Oscheius) guentheri sp. n. – an unusual
species with reduced posterior ovary – with observations on the Dolichura and
Insectivora groups (Nematoda: Rhabditidae), Nematologica 40: 508-533.
Sudhaus, W. & R. Kühne, 1989, Nematodes associated with Psychodidae: Description of
Rhabditis berolina sp. n. and redescription of R. dubia Bovien, 1937 (Nematoda:
Rhabditidae) - with biological and ecological notes, and a phylogenetic discussion,
Nematologica 35: 305-320.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1958, Het verschijnsel mens (Dutch, translated edition of Le
Phénomène humain), 4th edition, Aula-pocket nr. 35, Aula-boeken
Utrecht/Antwerpen.

© V.S. Scholze 1999

10