Phyllotaxis
the spirals are counted, not admired
Concept

Branch point — where it appears

A rise at which three lattices meet, so a pattern arriving there can go either of two ways. This collection solves them numerically and then finds that they have a closed form, which was not what the calculation was for.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The plane of stems: divergence across, rise up. Each shade is one parastichy pair. The marked points are the lattices where three families are equally short — the forks — and the Fibonacci ones run up the middle towards 137.51°.

The forks are exact

Where a stem's pattern has to choose between two futures, three spiral families are equally short and the lattice is exactly equilateral. A numerical solver found those points; the numbers it returned turned out to be rational, and chasing that gave a closed form — including the fact that every fork sits at a rational divergence, and the golden angle at none of them.

cylinder · Forks The 2-jugate forks converge on 68.7539°. Every fork sits at a rational divergence, with denominator 4(m² + mn + n²) — 10/28, 30/76, 74/196 and so on. The limit is 68.7539°, which is 137.5078 divided by 2, and it is at none of them.

Half the golden angle

The forks of the van Iterson tree converge on 137.5078° and sit at none of them. Divide the whole tree by two and the same thing happens at 68.7539° — which is where teasel is, and where a bijugate sunflower counted 42 and 68 has to be.

lattices · Jugate limit What is visible in the outer part of a 4000-element organ. Both surfaces have the same ladder in element number — the rise is 1/(2πi·flare) on a cone and 1/(4πi) on a disc, and c and the internode step both cancel. What differs is where the elements are. Counting outside 50 per cent of the extent, a cone shows 1 change and a disc 2, because half a cone's length holds half its elements and half a disc's radius holds three quarters of them.

Why a cone can be counted once

A pineapple is described as 8 and 13 and the description holds. A sunflower is described as 34 and 55 and the description is a statement about one annulus. Both organs have the same ladder in element number — what differs is where an organ puts its elements.

cylinder · Organ size The fork the cost chooses at a daughter ratio of 1: 37.47 and 37.47 degrees. Three ends held fixed, three weights fixed by the radii, and the branch point put where the total cost is least. At the optimal radius the pumping term is exactly half the upkeep term, so a segment's weight is its own cross-section and the three weights here are 1.5874, 1.0000, 1.0000. Minimising directly over the position — a 41×41 grid re-centred and shrunk 220 times, told nothing about any formula — puts the daughters at 37.4673° and 37.4673° from the parent's own forward direction, against the closed form's 37.4673° and 37.4673°.

The angle the cost chooses

Murray's exponent falls out of minimising a cost over the radius of a tube. The same cost minimised over the position of the branch point instead fixes both fork angles, and 281 networks minimised on a grid told nothing about any formula agree with the closed form to under two ten-thousandths of a degree.

branching · Fork angle The three weights at an exponent of 2 and 3: one closes a triangle and one is a straight line. A branch point minimising a weighted sum of three lengths has an interior solution only when the three weights close a triangle, and the weight on a segment here is its own cross-section. At an exponent of 3 the three areas clear that condition by 0.4126, and the triangle they close is what the two fork angles are read off. At an exponent of 2 the parent's area is exactly the daughters' areas summed — that is what area conservation says — so the slack is -4.44e-16, the triangle collapses onto a line, and the fork closes to 0.0000 degrees. Leonardo's rule does not predict a different angle here; it predicts no angle.

A rule that predicts everything

Leonardo's rule says a fork conserves cross-section, and cross-section is exactly the weight the branch point is minimised against. So the three weights land on the boundary of the triangle inequality, the cosine comes out at one to the last bit, and the rule predicts no angle at all — and the free constant its own derivation leaves behind then walks the prediction across every angle a fork could have.

branching · Fork angle The two trees this site draws, at 30° and 32° to a side, against the cost's 37.47° and 37.47°. Two trees of 63 segments each, 5 generations deep and 31 junctions apiece, with every junction's radii taken from r₀³ = r₁³ + r₂³ exactly and every junction's angle taken from a constant. Read as an exponent through cos(θ/2) = 2^(2/p − 1), the drawn angles say 2.5237 and 2.6239, in pictures whose widths are built at exactly 3. The cost that fixed those widths wants 37.47° and 37.47° at this daughter ratio, 74.93° in total, and the misses cost 0.573% and 0.292% of the network — which is why a fixed angle can sit in a figure about a minimisation and never look wrong.

The trees drawn at no angle

Two branching figures in these essays set every junction's radii from the cube law exactly and every junction's angle from a constant nobody derived. Read as exponents the drawn angles say 2.52 and 2.62, in pictures whose widths say exactly three — and at a lopsided fork the drawing puts a daughter thirty-four degrees from where the same cost puts it.

branching · Fork angle

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Closed formFork angleMurray's lawOptimisationRiseBranchBranching exponentClaim testingDaughter ratioFibonacciLadderRational divergence

All concepts