ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses a genealogical investigation of the assumptions and principles that attempts to gain an understanding of the philosophical difference between Alexander von Humboldt’s physiognomic “plant forms” and Eugene Warming’s physiographic “growth forms.” It argues that the 19th century static accounts of plant associations were supposed by early 20th century dynamic accounts of plant succession. The genealogy of dynamic conceptions of habitat associations in the accounts of succession in early American plant ecology in the previous investigation raises historical questions concerning the notion of plant form in 19th century European plant geography. Distinguishable logics of habitat fitness were classifications that reflected underlying suppositions concerning plant formations and how they are known. These logics of habitat fitness illustrate a search for a notion of form proper to plant associations in 19th century plant geography. Warming’s logic of habitat associations illustrates a nutritive conception of plant forms and a different theory of manifolds.
