“botanist noted chiefly for her studies in comparative anatomy of plants….Later works reflect her interest in philosophy: The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form (1950), The Mind and the Eye: A Study of the Biologist’s Standpoint (1954), The Manifold and the One (1957).”
I have often wondered if the morphological study of plants and animals is simply pseudo-science. If two animals happen to look alike, does that really signify anything important? Just as psychology is often pseudo-scientific when it is not based in biochemistry, so, too, morphology seems pseudo-scientific when not based on genetics. Is it surprising that the worthlessness of her science led her to philosophy?
Her books combining philosophy with biology might be interesting to read, however.