Scribd
Upload
148 views1 page

APG I (1998) : Phylogenetic Monophyletic

The 1998 APG paper systematically reclassified angiosperms primarily based on genetics. It proposed a new ordinal classification with 40 orders, compared to 232 in an existing system. Key aspects included not using formal names above the order level, placing many uncertain taxa, and providing alternative classifications for some groups. A major outcome was removing the traditional division of monocots and dicots, with monocots recognized as a clade but dicots not recognized as a single group.

Uploaded by

Ansev Civas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
148 views1 page

APG I (1998) : Phylogenetic Monophyletic

The 1998 APG paper systematically reclassified angiosperms primarily based on genetics. It proposed a new ordinal classification with 40 orders, compared to 232 in an existing system. Key aspects included not using formal names above the order level, placing many uncertain taxa, and providing alternative classifications for some groups. A major outcome was removing the traditional division of monocots and dicots, with monocots recognized as a clade but dicots not recognized as a single group.

Uploaded by

Ansev Civas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

APG I (1998)[edit]

The initial 1998 paper by the APG made angiosperms the first large group of organisms
to be systematically re-classified primarily on the basis of genetic characteristics. [9] The
paper explains the authors' view that there is a need for a classification system for
angiosperms at the level of families, orders and above, but that existing classifications
are "outdated". The main reason why existing systems are rejected is because they are
not phylogenetic, i.e. are not based on strictlymonophyletic groups (i.e. groups which
consist of all descendants of a common ancestor). An ordinal classification of flowering
plant families is proposed as a "reference tool of broad utility". The broad approach
adopted to defining the limits of orders resulted in the recognition of 40 orders, compared
to, for example, 232 inTakhtajan's 1997 classification.[7]
Other features of the proposed classification include:

Formal, scientific names are not used above the level of order,
named clades being used instead. Thus eudicots and monocots are not given a
formal rank on the grounds that "it is not yet clear at which level they should be
recognized".[10]

A substantial number of taxa whose classification had traditionally been uncertain


are given places, although there still remain 25 families of "uncertain position". [11]

Alternative classifications are provided for some groups, in which a number of


families can either be regarded as separate or can be merged into a single larger
family. For example, the Fumariaceae can either be treated as a separate family or
as part of Papaveraceae.[12]

A major outcome of the classification is the disappearance of the traditional division of


the flowering plants into two groups, monocots and dicots. The monocots are recognized
as a clade, but the dicots are not, with a number of former dicots being placed in
separate groups basal to both monocots and the remaining dicots, the eudicots or 'true
dicots'.[13]
See also: APG system

You might also like