NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey all, I'm working on the prelims for a new painting involving the (in part) the cellular structure of flowers. I was wondering if anyone on here could point me to some good links with articles that have some good photos/graphics and diagrams to gfo along with them. I'm almost equally as interested in the science behind it as well, as it does very much fit in with the overall theme I'm working with.

Google and LAta-Vista searches are all well and good, but so very random in nature, so I'm turning to the kind people here to share their knowledge (there must be at least a copuple botanists here...we do seem to be a rather well educated group)

Any help much appreciated, thanks in advance.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/plants/images/plantcell.jpg

OK. That's a generic plant cell i.e. non-specific function or species. What would you like to know?

That picture is actually quite useful for a begining, thank you.

I'm most interested in the acrchitecture of the flower on the cellular level, the way they fit together, the different cells, shapes ans their purposes, as well as the growth cycle of of an individidual cell and how that growth rleates to othewr cells and the overall structure of the flower. Patterns of growwth would be an area I need to research. Pigmentation is another area of interest, but since the project is a creative one, thats an area I can take more liberties with.

The basic concept for the painting I have planned is the view one would have if you were inside a flower, looking out. No hoighty-toighty themes or ideas I'm partuclarly interested in, just making something beautiful using with the theme of the life surrounding us, on a cellular level contrated with that visible to the naked eye. The particular flower I'm composing the piece around would be a water lilly, though once again, being a creative project, I can and will take liberties.

So is the viewpoint going to be the cell components in the foreground, then cells in the mid-distance and the outside world in the background, all sort of transparent? It would be useful to know as it might help with how much detail to go into e.g. will the painting contain both the inner workings of the nucleus and the overall flower shape? Will you need to see the structure of the cells as well as the structure of the tissues and organs they form?

So is the viewpoint going to be the cell components in the foreground, then cells in the mid-distance and the outside world in the background, all sort of transparent? It would be useful to know as it might help with how much detail to go into e.g. will the painting contain both the inner workings of the nucleus and the overall flower shape? Will you need to see the structure of the cells as well as the structure of the tissues and organs they form?
The idea is as if you were a cell of the flower, surrouinded of course by fellow cells, looking out through a layer of cells two or three thick, like looking through a series strange 3D stained glass windows out onto the world. Texture would be visible on the surfaces closest to the veiwer, detail diminishing with distance and interfernce of other structrues, just as in reallity. I will be stylizing somewhat in terms of structure, in interest of making it visually appealing as possible.

Interior structure of cells would be visible to some extent, from what I understand and have seen in regards to the nature of plant cells, which IIRC are rather translucent and showing parts of their internal structure whenj viewed at close range from the outside (like in a microscope sample slide)

Wow, that sounds really intriguing!

Try this google picture search (German "Pflanzenzelle" = plant cell)

http://images.google.de/images?q=Pflanzenzelle&hl=de&btnG=Google-Suche

This one's pretty nifty:

http://www.cells.de/cellsger/1medienarchiv/Die_Zelle_allgemein/Pflanzenzelle/Drehbare_Pflanzenzelle/index.jsp

What you've got to know is that the plastids (what eventually gives plants a color) are interchangeable to a certain degree, so the structure of a flower cell is pretty much the same as any other plant cell above ground (and without specialization).

This one explains the abovementioned:

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e04/04a.htm

And this is what we actually used at university - highly recommendable!

http://www.cellsalive.com/cells/plntcell.htm

The idea is as if you were a cell of the flower, surrouinded of course by fellow cells, looking out through a layer of cells two or three thick, like looking through a series strange 3D stained glass windows out onto the world. Texture would be visible on the surfaces closest to the veiwer, detail diminishing with distance and interfernce of other structrues, just as in reallity. I will be stylizing somewhat in terms of structure, in interest of making it visually appealing as possible.

Interior structure of cells would be visible to some extent, from what I understand and have seen in regards to the nature of plant cells, which IIRC are rather translucent and showing parts of their internal structure whenj viewed at close range from the outside (like in a microscope sample slide)
So you'd only be including organelles visible under a light microscope rather than an electron microscope? That's east then - within the cell all you need is the nucleus, the mitochondria and the chloroplasts.

The nucleus is basically a sphere, possibly with the characteristic chromosomes visible in some cells but not all - chromosomes only condense into their familiar 'X' shape at prophase (where the nuclear membrane also disintegrates), form a line down the middle at metaphase and split into the two halves of the 'X' at anaphase before migrating to opposite poles of the cell to reform in new nuclei, all before the cell divides. That whole process lasts for about 5% of each cell's life cycle, so you probably wouldn't see too many of those - otherwise, just show a sort of distended sphere-shape in each cell. It's also the largest inner part of the cell, so draw them somewhere around an eighth of the total volume, give or take another eighth volume.

Whole Nuclei Without Visible Chromosomes (http://euclid.dne.wvfibernet.net/~jvg/Bio208/ConvPix/nucleus.gif)

Diagram Of Chromosomes In Metaphase, With Nuclear Membrane Clearly Absent (http://library.thinkquest.org/18258/media/metaphaseI-2.gif)

The mitochondria are shaped like caplet pills that some paracetamol comes as. If you really want some detail on this, draw a sort of translucent, smooth, exterior membrane with a highly folded membrane on the interior, lining the external membrane with the folds aiming inwards.

Something Like This (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/mitochondria/images/mitochondriafigure1.jpg)

The chloroplasts - unless you are planning to show any upper palisade leaf cells, you won't need to show these. They are similar in external shape to the mitochondria but entirely different internally, with stacks of burger-shaped thylakoids.

Chloroplast Detail (http://www.daviddarling.info/images/chloroplast.jpg)

The other organelles visible in the original diagram - golgi apparatus, ribosomes, rough and smooth endoplasmic reticuli - are barely visible, if at all, with a light microscope. The rest of the interior of the cell is just a jelly-like substance called cytoplasm - if you wish to show that somehow, try to create the image with a sort of oily liquid effect; mostly clear, with swirling patterns within it. This will also be where the pigmentation presents, I would have thought, so make it the colour of your flower. As for the nucleus, mitochondria etc. - the colours seen in electron micrographs are formed by dying the cell contents or false colour images, so you can get all artistic on those.

In conclusion, all you need to show in each cell (assuming visibility of a light microscope) is the cell wall surrounding a cell membrane, enveloping the cytoplasm which contains the organelles. Reference the origianl diagram, as my description is undoubtedly confusing.


EDIT: What GN said about the pigmentation - I didn't know, so possibly use that.

ToL and GN: Thank you both so very much. This is exactly what I'd hoped for when I asked for some help. Its going to take me a while to process the information, and it all looks really good. Once again, thanks.

(give me a) *bump*

In hopes peoples in other time zones may have something to add, regarding the larger architecture/structural aspect.


Must sleep now (why must human beings be so inefficient?)

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but here's a very high-magnification shot of the surface of some plants, including a flower. Seems they're covered in wax.
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/webb/BOT311/BOT311-00/PlantCellWalls00/Cutin-2.htm

This one shows the basic arrangement of the cells--spherical and jumbled, not ordered and blocky like an onion's, it appears. Could be useful.
http://inisjp.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/ACT00E/05/0506.htm


EDIT: I'm going to sleep now too... I'll check back tomorrow if this hasn't vanished into the abyss yet.

That is what I'm looking for, thank you.

Its good enough to not have to just guess at the structure.

Interesting, how our own approach to structures and building uses the same genral approach,but with straight lines rather than organic curves (I'm think of bricks, just to make things clear) I wonder if its simple practicality or if we were influenced by the structures we see in nature...

That is what I'm looking for, thank you.

Its good enough to not have to just guess at the structure.

Interesting, how our own approach to structures and building uses the same genral approach,but with straight lines rather than organic curves (I'm think of bricks, just to make things clear) I wonder if its simple practicality or if we were influenced by the structures we see in nature...

If you lived up in Northern New England like me, you'd see that humans don't restrict themselves to straight lines. There are plenty of 3-4 foot highX2 foot wide rock walls here made from small boulders (between 4 inches and 2 feet in diameter, generally) dropped off by the glaciers--all of which are quite round. You'd be surprised how well they stick together without any morter at all.

Though, there's not really any mimicking going on. It's easier to produce small pieces and build with them than it is to build large pieces and connect them together, so we use small pieces, like wood beams, bricks, stones, etc. Plus, we've been building using small pieces for millenia before we even knew that cells existed, and you'd be hard-pressed to find the stacked-small-object design scheme on the macroscopic level in nature.

If you lived up in Northern New England like me, you'd see that humans don't restrict themselves to straight lines. There are plenty of 3-4 foot highX2 foot wide rock walls here made from small boulders (between 4 inches and 2 feet in diameter, generally) dropped off by the glaciers--all of which are quite round. You'd be surprised how well they stick together without any morter at all.

Though, there's not really any mimicking going on. It's easier to produce small pieces and build with them than it is to build large pieces and connect them together, so we use small pieces, like wood beams, bricks, stones, etc. Plus, we've been building using small pieces for millenia before we even knew that cells existed, and you'd be hard-pressed to find the stacked-small-object design scheme on the macroscopic level in nature.


Don't know why I didn't think of natural stone walls. We have enough of 'em around where I live...plus one of my side jobs is making natural stone walkways/garden paths (an art unto itself) I would think the way cells are stacked is very reminiscent of the way a stone wall or even a brick wall is stacked and layered. But I'm an artist with an interest in science, not the toher way around, so my observations can be rather skewed.