P S. S D E. S: He Origin and Diversification of Angiosperms

American Journal of Botany 91(10): 1614–1626. 2004.
THE ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF ANGIOSPERMS1
PAMELA S. SOLTIS2,4 AND DOUGLAS E. SOLTIS3

Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA; and 3Department of Botany, University
2
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA
The angiosperms, one of five groups of extant seed plants, are the largest group of land plants. Despite their relatively recent origin,
this clade is extremely diverse morphologically and ecologically. However, angiosperms are clearly united by several synapomorphies.
During the past 10 years, higher-level relationships of the angiosperms have been resolved. For example, most analyses are consistent
in identifying Amborella, Nymphaeaceae, and Austrobaileyales as the basalmost branches of the angiosperm tree. Other basal lineages
include Chloranthaceae, magnoliids, and monocots. Approximately three quarters of all angiosperm species belong to the eudicot clade,
which is strongly supported by molecular data but united morphologically by a single synapomorphy—triaperturate pollen. Major
clades of eudicots include Ranunculales, which are sister to all other eudicots, and a clade of core eudicots, the largest members of
which are Saxifragales, Caryophyllales, rosids, and asterids. Despite rapid progress in resolving angiosperm relationships, several
significant problems remain: (1) relationships among the monocots, Chloranthaceae, magnoliids, and eudicots, (2) branching order
among basal eudicots, (3) relationships among the major clades of core eudicots, (4) relationships within rosids, (5) relationships of
the many lineages of parasitic plants, and (6) integration of fossils with extant taxa into a comprehensive tree of angiosperm phylogeny.
Key words: Amborella; angiosperms; phylogeny.
The angiosperms, or flowering plants, one of the major logeny. Strong support for many clades that correspond to tra-
clades of extant seed plants (see Burleigh and Mathews, 2004, ditionally recognized families provided early confidence that
in this issue), are the largest group of embryophytes, with at the molecular-based trees were producing reasonable recon-
least 260 000 living species classified in 453 families (APG II, structions of phylogeny. However, some traditional families
2003). Angiosperms are amazingly diverse. They occupy ev- and many orders and higher groups have been shown to be
ery habitat on Earth except the highest mountaintops, the re- nonmonophyletic, while many groups of previously uncertain
gions immediately surrounding the poles, and the deepest placement have been placed with great confidence. The An-
oceans, and they occur as epiphytes, floating and rooted aquat- giosperm Phylogeny Group, an international consortium of
ics in both freshwater and marine habitats, and terrestrial systematists, recognized the need for a new classification that
plants that vary tremendously in size, longevity, and overall reflects current views of angiosperm phylogeny (APG, 1998;
form. Furthermore, the diversity in chemistry, reproductive APG II, 2003). An abridged version of the classification is
morphology, and genome size and organization is unparalleled given in Appendix 1 (see Supplemental Data accompanying
in the Plant Kingdom. online version of this paper) and at the Deep Time website
Despite their diversity, angiosperms are clearly united by a (http://flmnh.ufl.edu/deeptime).
suite of synapomorphies (i.e., shared, derived features), in- In this paper, we provide a brief overview of angiosperm
cluding double fertilization and endosperm formation, the car- phylogeny as currently understood (Fig. 1) and examine pat-
pel, stamens with two pairs of pollen sacs, features of game- terns of angiosperm diversification. The monocot and eudicot
tophyte structure and development, and phloem tissue com- clades will be considered in greater detail in the accompanying
posed of sieve tubes and companion cells (see Doyle and Don- papers by Chase (2004) and Judd and Olmstead (2004), re-
oghue, 1986; and P. Soltis et al., 2004, for further discussion). spectively.
This evidence strongly negates hypotheses of polyphyletic or-
igins of extant angiosperms. ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENY
The fossil record of the angiosperms extends back at least
to the early Cretaceous, conservatively 130 million years ago The root of the tree—A mere decade ago, the possibility
(mya) (see Crane et al., 2004). Floral size, structure, and or- of identifying the basal nodes of the angiosperm clade seemed
ganization among early angiosperms varied tremendously, remote. However, most analyses of the past five years concur
ranging from small (i.e., ,1 cm in diameter) flowers of fossil in placing the monotypic Amborella as the sister to all other
Chloranthaceae and many other lineages (reviewed in Friis et extant angiosperms. Amborella trichopoda, endemic to cloud
al., 2000), both extant and extinct, to the large, Magnolia-like forests of New Caledonia, was described in the mid-nineteenth
flowers of Archaeanthus (Dilcher and Crane, 1984). This floral century (Baillon, 1869) and has since been classified with var-
diversity in the fossil record is consistent with an early radi- ious groups of basal angiosperms, most often with Laurales
ation of angiosperms and associated diversification in floral (e.g., Cronquist, 1981). However, Amborella clearly differs
form (e.g., Friis et al., 2000). from most Laurales in having spirally arranged floral organs
Large-scale collaborations among angiosperm systematists (except perhaps the carpels; Buzgo et al., in press), rather than
have greatly improved our understanding of angiosperm phy- the whorled phyllotaxis typical of most Laurales (see studies
of floral morphology and development by Endress and Iger-
1
Manuscript received 6 February 2004; revision accepted 1 July 2004.
The authors thank M. Chase, J. Palmer, and an anonymous reviewer for
sheim, 2000b; Posluszny and Tomlinson, 2003; Buzgo et al.,
very helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported in in press), and lacks those features considered to be synapo-
part by NSF grants DEB-0090283 and PGR-0115684. morphies for Laurales (Doyle and Endress, 2000; see Laurales
4
E-mail: [email protected]. later). Amborella has carpels that are closed only by secretion,
1614
October 2004] SOLTIS AND SOLTIS—DIVERSIFICATION OF ANGIOSPERMS 1615
MADS-box genes Apetala3 and Pistillata also supported the

position of Amborella and Nymphaeaceae as sisters to all other
extant angiosperms, and analyses of nucleotide and amino acid
sequences of these genes also placed Amborella, either alone
or with Nymphaeaceae, in this position (Kim et al., in press).
Alternative views—Despite general support for the place-

ment of Amborella as sister to the rest of the extant angio-
sperms, a few studies have found alternative rootings, using
either different genes or different methods of analysis. For
example, Amborella 1 Nymphaeaceae (e.g., Parkinson et al.,
1999; Barkman et al., 2000; Mathews and Donoghue, 2000;
Qiu et al., 2000; P. Soltis et al., 2000; Kim et al., in press) or
Nymphaeaceae alone (e.g., Parkinson et al., 1999; Graham and
Olmstead, 2000, with partial sampling of Nymphaeaceae; Ma-
thews and Donoghue, 2000) have occasionally been reported
as sister to all other angiosperms. However, statistical analyses
of these alternative rootings using a data set of up to 11 genes
generally favor the tree with Amborella as sister to the rest,
although the Amborella 1 Nymphaeaceae tree could not al-
ways be rejected (Zanis et al., 2002). Nearly all of these stud-
ies are consistent in noting that conflicting topologies are not
strongly supported. Furthermore, the difference among these
three topologies is relatively minor and consists solely of the
relative placement of Amborella and Nymphaeaceae.
A more dramatic alternative, based on a selection of 61
genes from the totally sequenced plastid genomes of 13 plant
species, placed the monocots (represented only by three grass-
es—rice, maize, and wheat) as the sister to all other extant
Fig. 1. Overview of angiosperm phylogenetic relationships, based on Qiu angiosperms (Goremykin et al., 2003). Whereas all molecular
et al. (1999), P. Soltis et al. (1999), D. Soltis et al. (2000, 2003), Zanis et al. analyses of angiosperms with dense taxon sampling strongly
(2002), Hilu et al. (2003), Kim et al. (2004b). supported monophyly of the monocots and most placed this
clade among the basal nodes of the angiosperm tree, none has
indicated that monocots are sister to all other extant angio-
rather than by fused tissue as in most angiosperms (Endress sperms. In the analysis by Goremykin et al. (2003), Amborella
and Igersheim, 2000a)—a feature that may represent a ple- was sister to Calycanthus of Laurales, a position consistent
siomorphy (i.e., ancestral feature) for the angiosperms. Vessels with the original description of Amborella, but clearly at odds
(Judd et al., 2002; but see Feild et al., 2000; Doyle and En- with other aspects of morphology (see Laurales section). Go-
dress, 2000) and pollen grains with a reticulate tectum (Doyle remykin et al. (2003) attributed their results to the increased
and Endress, 2001) appear to be synapomorphies for all extant character sampling (30 017 nucleotides in their aligned matrix)
angiosperms except Amborella. Ethereal oil cells—common in their study relative to other analyses that included fewer
throughout basal angiosperms—and columellate pollen grains genes but many more taxa. However, further analyses of a data
with a perforate tectum are synapomorphies for all extant an- set of three genes and nearly equivalent taxon sampling indi-
giosperms except Amborella and Nymphaeaceae (Doyle and cated that the ‘‘monocots basal’’ topology is an artifact of lim-
Endress, 2001). ited taxon sampling (Soltis and Soltis, 2004). When either
Nymphaea or Austrobaileya, representing Nymphaeaceae and
The evidence for Amborella—Nearly all multigene analyses Austrobaileyales, respectively, was substituted for Amborella,
of basal angiosperms have identified Amborella as the sister each appeared as the sister to Calycanthus, in exactly the same
to all other extant angiosperms (e.g., Mathews and Donoghue, position that Amborella had occupied, presumably because the
1999, 2000; Parkinson et al., 1999; Qiu et al., 1999; P. Soltis data set, which was limited to a subset of those plant species
et al., 1999; Graham and Olmstead, 2000; Graham et al., 2000; for which entire plastid genome sequences are available, con-
D. Soltis et al., 2000; Magallón and Sanderson, 2001; Zanis tained no other close relatives. Furthermore, representing
et al., 2002; see also Nickerson and Drouin, 2004), with vary- monocots by taxa other than grasses, which reside at the end
ing levels of support. The genes that support this position of a long branch (e.g., Gaut et al., 1992, 1996; Chase et al.,
come from all three plant genomes and represent relatively 2000), broke up the long branch to the monocots and resulted
‘‘slowly evolving’’ protein-coding and ribosomal RNA genes. in the ‘‘Amborella basal’’ topology. Likewise, broader sam-
Furthermore, analyses of the ‘‘rapidly evolving’’ plastid gene pling of the monocots beyond grasses (the sole monocots in-
matK (Hilu et al., 2003) and mostly noncoding trnL-trnF cluded by Goremykin et al., 2003) also severed the long mono-
(Borsch et al., 2003) each showed these same results. In all of cot branch and yielded the ‘‘Amborella basal’’ tree. Finally,
these studies, Nymphaeaceae and Austrobaileyales (both sensu when plastid sequences of the monocot Acorus were added to
the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, APG II, 2003) ‘‘followed’’ the data set of Goremykin et al., also disrupting the long branch
Amborella as successive sisters to the remaining extant angio- to the grasses, Amborella resumed its position as sister to the
sperms. Furthermore, the structural organization of the floral other angiosperms (S. Stefanovic et al., Indiana University,
1616 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY [Vol. 91
unpublished data). Although increasing the number of char-

acters will generally lead to greater accuracy (Hillis, 1996) and
support (e.g., Givnish and Sytsma, 1997; Soltis et al., 1998),
the increase in characters cannot come at the expense of ad-
equate taxon sampling (e.g., Chase et al., 1993; Sytsma and
Baum, 1996; Zwickl and Hillis, 2002; Pollock et al., 2002;
Soltis et al., in press-a). Limited taxon sampling, such as that
dictated by the small number of organisms with complete ge-
nome sequences, may lead to artifacts, as apparently occurred
in the analysis by Goremykin et al. (2003).
The fossil record—The fossil record does not clarify basal

groups within the angiosperms. However, it clearly identifies
a number of morphologically diverse lineages early in angio-
sperm evolution (e.g., Crane et al., 1995; Friis et al., 2000).
Although some of these early fossils seem to belong to extant
families, many do not fit easily into extant groups. For ex-
ample, two species of Archaefructus (Sun et al., 1998, 2002)
may be the sister to all other angiosperms (Sun et al., 2002),
although a reanalysis of their data, with the inclusion of ad- Fig. 2. Summary of phylogenetic relationships among clades of basal an-
ditional material, indicated alternative placements (Friis et al., giosperms, based primarily on Zanis et al. (2002).
2003). Notably, with regard to the plastid topology of Gore-
mykin et al. (2003), the monocots are not among the earliest
angiosperm fossils, although both the fossil record (Gandolfo favor of eudicots, with recognition that considerable diversity
et al., 2002) and molecular clock estimates (K. Bremer, 2000; exists outside the monocot and eudicot clades.
Wikström et al., 2001; Davies et al., 2004) have indicated that
many lineages of monocots date back at least 80–100 mya. Nymphaeaceae—The phylogenetic position of Nymphae-
However, Nymphaeaceae are among the earliest angiosperm aceae as one of the two basalmost lineages of extant angio-
fossils: a water lily from approximately 125 mya (Friis et al., sperms is strongly supported by nearly all molecular analyses.
2001) is consistent with the basal or near-basal position of the This clade of eight genera has a worldwide distribution, con-
Nymphaeaceae branch in most molecular-based trees, and the sistent with both the ancient age of this lineage and aquatic
floral features of Microvictoria (90 mya; Gandolfo et al., 2004) habitats. Although all genera occupy aquatic habitats, these
provide evidence of beetle entrapment pollination in early an- habitats range from temperate to tropical. Floral diversity
giosperms. Likewise, the abundance of fossils of Chlorantha- among genera is extensive, ranging from the small, simple,
ceae and Ceratophyllaceae from the early Cretaceous (e.g., trimerous, monocot-like flowers of Cabomba to the large,
Couper, 1958; Walker and Walker, 1984; Dilcher, 1989; Friis showy, elaborate flowers of Nymphaea and Victoria. Although
et al., 2000; see Endress, 2001, for review) is also consistent the latter were considered ‘‘primitive’’ by most authors,
with the placement of these clades among extant angiosperms Schneider (1979) suggested that the numerous floral organs of
in molecular-based trees (Figs. 1, 2). Nymphaea and Victoria resulted from secondary increase.
Phylogenetic analyses (Les et al., 1999) and character recon-
structions (Ronse DeCraene et al., 2003; Soltis et al., in press-
Basal lineages—The positions of Amborellaceae and Nym- b) supported Schneider’s (1979) hypothesis. Floral diversifi-
phaeaceae as successive sisters to the rest of the angiosperms cation in Nymphaeacae may be related to changes in pollina-
are followed in turn by Austrobaileyales. Although these first tion: proliferation of parts in response to beetle pollination in
three nodes are well supported (e.g., Zanis et al., 2002; Hilu Nymphaea and Victoria and a reduction in number of parts
et al., 2003), resolution and support for relationships of the associated with a shift to cleistogamy in Euryale (Gottsberger,
next few nodes are poor (Fig. 2). Ceratophyllaceae, monocots, 1977, 1978; Williams and Schneider, 1993; Lipok et al., 2000).
Chloranthaceae, magnoliids, and eudicots are each well sup-
ported, and both the fossil record and molecular-based trees Austrobaileyales—This small clade comprises Austrobail-
identify these lineages as ancient. However, their interrelation- eyaceae (Austrobaileya) and Trimeniaceae (Trimenia) from
ships remain unclear. It is clear, however, that angiosperms do Australasia plus Schisandraceae sensu APG II (2003), i.e.,
not fall into two major groups that correspond to monocots Schisandraceae (Schisandra and Kadsura) and Illiciaceae (Il-
(Liliopsida) and dicots (Magnoliopsida) of longstanding clas- licium) of most other recent classifications (Qiu et al., 1999;
sification systems (such as Cronquist, 1981; Takhtajan, 1997, Renner, 1999; Savolainen et al., 2000a, b; P. Soltis et al., 1999;
and their predecessors). Although monocots clearly form a D. Soltis et al., 2000). Although the traditional Illiciaceae and
strongly supported clade, dicots in the traditional sense do not: Schisandraceae have typically been united in Illiciales, a re-
most are found in the eudicot clade, but the remaining non- lationship between these taxa and Austrobaileya and Trimenia
monocot basal branches (i.e., Amborellaceae, Nymphaeaceae, had not been suspected. No morphological synapomorphies
Austrobaileyales, Ceratophyllaceae, Chloranthaceae, magno- have been identified for this clade, despite the strong molec-
liids) were also ‘‘traditional’’ dicots. The nonmonophyly of the ular support for its monophyly.
dicots has long been suspected, and the lack of monophyly
precludes their recognition in current classifications (e.g., APG Ceratophyllaceae—Ceratophyllaceae (Ceratophyllum) had
II, 2003). The concept of ‘‘dicot’’ should be abandoned in the distinction of appearing as the sister to all other angio-
sperms in the first large molecular phylogenetic analysis based roots, and roots without secondary growth. Adventitious roots
on rbcL (Chase et al., 1993). The aquatic habit and simple are found elsewhere in the angiosperms, in both Piperaceae
flowers seemed at odds with most hypotheses about the earliest and Nymphaeaceae.
angiosperms, although Ceratophyllum has a long fossil record, Trimerous flowers have long been considered a uniting fea-
going back at least 125 mya (Dilcher, 1989). Subsequent anal- ture of the monocots, but it is not an exclusive one because
yses demonstrated that this placement was unique to the rbcL there are many other basal angiosperms, including Nymphae-
data set, but the position of Ceratophyllum, based on evidence aceae and magnoliids, that also exhibit trimery. In fact, char-
from many other genes, is still not clear. It appears as the sister acter-state reconstructions of the angiosperms indicate that tri-
to monocots in some analyses (e.g., Zanis et al., 2002; Davies mery arose early in the angiosperms; it may be ancestral for
et al., 2004), but further work is needed to identify its proper all angiosperms except Amborella (Ronse De Craene et al.,
position. 2003; Zanis et al., 2003; Soltis et al., in press-b), or perhaps
all angiosperms, if the shift away from trimery in Amborella
Monocots—Among extant angiosperms, monocotyledons occurred along the lineage leading to Amborella. Trimery ap-
represent the earliest-appearing major clade. Using a molecular pears, therefore, to be a symplesiomorphic feature for mono-
clock, K. Bremer (2000) dated the origin of the monocot clade cots and other angiosperms and is not a ‘‘monocot character.’’
to be 134 mya, older than the oldest angiosperm fossils. Al- Our understanding of monocot phylogenetics has greatly
though their exact age is unclear from the fossil record (but improved over the past decade, aided greatly by the foci pro-
see Gandolfo et al., 2002), monocots clearly represent an early vided by the international monocot symposia held in 1993,
lineage of angiosperms. There are approximately 52 000 spe- 1998, and 2003. These meetings have focused attention both
cies of monocots (Mabberley, 1993), representing 22% of all on what was known and, more importantly, on which groups
angiosperms. Half of the monocots can be found in the two needed additional research. As a result, we now know more
largest families, Orchidaceae and Poaceae, which comprise about monocots than any other group of angiosperms of com-
34% and 17%, respectively, of all monocots. parable size, a situation that is remarkable given the paucity
Phylogenetic studies of nonmolecular data (Donoghue and of information available in 1985 (Dahlgren et al., 1985). This
Doyle, 1989; Loconte and Stevenson, 1991; Doyle and Don- model should be adopted for the other large groups of angio-
oghue, 1992) have identified 13 putative synapomorphies for sperms (e.g., rosids, asterids) so that attention is likewise fo-
the monocots, including, among others, a single cotyledon, cused on integration of research programs and gaps in the
parallel-veined leaves, sieve cell plastids with several cuneate database.
protein crystals, scattered vascular bundles in the stem, and an There have been several recent analyses of relationships
adventitious root system. An often-overlooked synapomorphy among the monocots, including the three-gene analyses of
for monocots is their sympodial growth; although there are Chase et al. (2000) and D. Soltis et al. (2000) and the seven-
other angiosperms with sympodial growth, monocots are near- gene analysis of Chase et al. (in press). The first two studies
ly exclusively so. These synapomorphies are covered in detail are based on the same three genes (rbcL, atpB, 18S rDNA);
in the paper by Chase in this issue (2004; see also Judd et al., however, Chase et al. (2000) focused only on the monocots
2002; Soltis et al., in press-b). and employed a larger number of taxa than used in D. Soltis
Recognition of the monocots as a distinct group within the et al. (2000). The analysis by Chase et al. (2004) included
angiosperms dates from Ray (1703) and was largely based on those three genes, plus partial nuclear 26S rDNA, plastid matK
their possession of a single cotyledon relative to the two cot- and ndhF, and mitochondrial atpA. The paper in this issue by
yledons typical of the dicotyledons or ‘‘dicots.’’ As reviewed Chase (2004) provides greater detail on monocot phylogeny,
earlier, the latter group is now known to be nonmonophyletic, and our coverage will therefore be brief.
and the term ‘‘dicot’’ should be abandoned. There is, however, All but two molecular phylogenetic analyses of monocots
a great diversity of form in monocot seedlings (Tillich, 1995) have placed Acorus alone as sister to all other monocots. The
and not all possess an obvious single cotyledon. first exception to this statement was the 18S rDNA analysis
Another major, distinctive trait of the monocots is their vas- of Bharathan and Zimmer (1995), in which Acorus was placed
cular system, which is characterized by vascular bundles that outside of the monocots altogether, a result that has to be con-
are scattered throughout the medulla and cortex and are closed sidered spurious. Combination of 18S rDNA sequence data
(i.e., do not contain an active cambium; reviewed in Tomlin- with sequences from rbcL and atpB (Chase et al., 2000; D.
son, 1995). In contrast, basal angiosperms formerly considered Soltis et al., 2000) resulted in strong support for the mono-
dicots (e.g., members of the magnoliid clade) and eudicots phyly of monocots, as well as strong support for the mono-
possess open vascular bundles arranged in a ring. phyly of all monocots excluding Acorus. A recent analysis of
Another widely cited character of the monocots is their par- two of the seven genes used in Chase et al. (in press), rbcL
ticular form of sieve cell plastids (Behnke, 1969), which are and atpA (Davis et al., in press), retrieved an alismatid clade
triangular with cuneate proteinaceous inclusions. Similar sieve that included Acorus. This deviating result is perplexing be-
cell plastids are found in Aristolochiaceae (Dahlgren et al., cause neither rbcL (Chase et al., 1993; Duvall et al., 1993)
1985). This similarity between monocots and Aristolochiaceae nor atpA (Davis et al., 1998) analyzed alone produced such a
apparently represents convergence, not shared ancestry, be- position for Acorus. In contrast, studies of basal angiosperm
cause phylogenetic studies of DNA sequences from all three relationships that have employed more genes (six to 11) have
genomes (Qiu et al., 1999; Zanis et al., 2002, 2003) have dem- consistently found Acorus sister to the remaining monocots
onstrated a strongly supported relationship of Aristolochiaceae with strong support (e.g., Qiu et al., 1999, 2000; Zanis et al.,
to other Piperales within the magnoliid clade. 2002, 2003). A recent angiosperm-wide analysis of matK se-
Other traits characteristic of the monocots include parallel quence data (Hilu et al., 2003), an analysis of ndhF in mono-
venation without free vein-endings (vs. reticulate venation cots (Givnish et al., in press), and a seven-gene analysis of
with free vein-endings), intercalary meristem, adventitious monocots (Chase et al., in press) found moderate to strong
support for the placement of Acorus as sister to other mono- len, and multiplicative testa in the seed (Doyle and Endress,
cots. Hence, most analyses agree on the placement of Acorus 2000). Furthermore, all members of this clade examined to
as sister to all other monocots. date have a characteristic deletion in their Apetala3 gene (Kim
Following Acorus, the monophyly of the remaining mono- et al., in press).
cots is strongly supported. Alismatales are sister to the re-
maining monocots, which themselves are strongly supported. Laurales. Laurales, as currently circumscribed (APG II,
Within this remaining large clade are several component sub- 2003; see Renner, 1999), comprise seven families: Calycan-
clades: commelinids, Dioscoreales, Petrosaviaceae, Pandana- thaceae (including Idiospermaceae), Monimiaceae, Gomorte-
les, Liliales, and Asparagales. Although many of these com- gaceae, Atherospermataceae, Lauraceae, Sipurunaceae, and
ponent subclades receive moderate to strong support, relation- Hernandiaceae. Amborellaceae and Trimeniaceae have also
ships among these subclades have been generally poorly re- occasionally been placed in Laurales (e.g., Cronquist, 1981,
solved. In the strict consensus of Chase et al. (2000), the 1988); in fact, both Amborella and Trimenia have even been
branching order above Alismatales is Dioscoreales, Pandana- considered part of Monimiaceae (Perkins, 1925). Chlorantha-
les, Liliales, and Asparagales 1 commelinids. The seven-gene ceae have also occasionally been placed in Laurales (e.g.,
analysis of Chase et al. (in press) is consistent with this pat- Thorne, 1974; Takhtajan, 1987, 1997). Laurales are united by
tern, except that Dioscoreales and Pandanales are sister taxa, a perigynous flower in which the gynoecium is frequently
and most of these relationships received at least moderate deeply embedded in a fleshy receptacle (Endress and Iger-
bootstrap support. sheim, 1997; Renner, 1999). Other apparent synapomorphies
include the presence of inner staminodia, ascendant ovules,
Chloranthaceae—Chloranthaceae, with their small, simple and tracheidal endotesta (Doyle and Endress, 2000).
flowers, have an extensive fossil record, dating back 125 my
(e.g., Couper, 1958; Walker and Walker, 1984; Friis et al., Piperales. Previous circumscriptions of Piperales have var-
2000). Chloranthaceae are clearly an isolated lineage separate ied (e.g., Dahlgren, 1980; Cronquist, 1981, 1988; Takhtajan,
from the magnoliid clade (Fig. 2), but their phylogenetic po- 1987, 1997; Thorne, 1992; Heywood, 1993), but molecular
sition remains uncertain. In some analyses (e.g., Zanis et al., studies clearly united Aristolochiaceae, Lactoridaceae, Piper-
2002; Davies et al., 2004), they are sister to a clade of mag- aceae, and Saururaceae (e.g., Qiu et al., 1999; Soltis et al.,
noliids 1 eudicots. Relationships and patterns of evolution 1999; Barkman et al., 2000; D. Soltis et al., 2000; Zanis et
within Chloranthaceae have been addressed by Kong et al. al., 2002). In addition, recent studies have placed Hydnora-
(2002), Doyle et al. (2003), Zhang and Renner (2003), and ceae, a family of parasitic plants often placed in Rosidae (e.g.,
Eklund et al. (2004). Cronquist, 1981; Heywood, 1993), within Piperales, although
the exact position is not certain (Nickrent et al., 2002). Al-
Magnoliids—The magnoliid clade comprises most of those though not recognized as a group prior to molecular analyses,
lineages typically referred to as ‘‘primitive angiosperms’’ in a number of morphological synapomorphies have been iden-
earlier works (e.g., Stebbins, 1974; Cronquist, 1981, 1988; tified: distichous phyllotaxis, a single prophyll, and oil cells
Takhtajan, 1997). Although the component families of the (Doyle and Endress, 2000).
magnoliid clade were loosely associated in previous classifi-
cations, for example, as Cronquist’s (1981) subclass Magno- Canellales. The sister group of Canellaceae and Winteraceae
liidae, relationships among the families and orders were not has been strongly supported in all multigene analyses (e.g.,
clear. In addition, Magnoliidae contained groups that are not Qiu et al., 1999; Soltis et al., 1999; D. Soltis et al., 2000;
part of the magnoliid clade as recognized by phylogenetic Zanis et al., 2002, 2003), and the clade was obtained in Doyle
analyses. Reconstructing relationships within this clade, and and Endress’s (2000) nonmolecular analysis as well. However,
even recognition of the clade itself, is challenging, given the these two families have not typically been considered closely
age of this clade (some putative members, such as Archaean- related to each other, and neither was suspected of being re-
thus, Dilcher and Crane, 1984, date to the early Cretaceous) lated to any members of Piperales. For example, Winteraceae
and presumably high levels of extinction. Although the major have often been considered a close relative of Magnoliaceae
lineages of the magnoliid clade were identified as well-sup- (e.g., Cronquist, 1981, 1988; Heywood, 1993), with Canella-
ported clades in earlier studies (e.g., Soltis et al., 1999), com- ceae close to Myristicaceae (e.g., Wilson, 1966; Cronquist,
position and interrelationships of the magnoliid clade did not 1981, 1988). Furthermore, Winteraceae have often been re-
become clear until data sets of at least five genes for a broad garded as perhaps the ‘‘most primitive’’ extant family of an-
sample of taxa were assembled to address these problems (e.g., giosperms (Cronquist, 1981; Endress, 1986). The phylogenetic
Qiu et al., 1999, 2000; Zanis et al., 2002). Within the mag- position of Winteraceae clearly indicates that the vesselless
noliids, Magnoliales and Laurales are sisters, and Piperales and xylem and plicate carpels found in members of the family are
Canellales are sisters (Fig. 2). secondarily derived (see also Young, 1981). Possible synapo-
morphies for Canellales are a well-differentiated pollen tube
Magnoliales. This clade comprises six families (Myristica- transmitting tissue, an outer integument with only two to four
ceae, Degeneriaceae, Himantandraceae, Magnoliaceae, Eu- cell layers, and seeds with a palisade exotesta (Doyle and En-
pomatiaceae, and Annonaceae), relationships among which are dress, 2000). Additional synapomorphies may include an ir-
now clear (e.g., Sauquet et al., 2003; Fig. 2). This same clade regular ‘‘first-rank’’ leaf venation (Hickey and Wolf, 1975;
emerged in the nonmolecular analysis of Doyle and Endress Doyle and Endress, 2000), stelar and nodal structure (Keating,
(2000). Apparent synapomorphies for the clade include re- 2000), and vascularization of the seeds (Deroin, 2000).
duced fiber pit borders, stratified phloem, an adaxial plate of
vascular tissue in the petiole, palisade parenchyma, astero- Eudicots—Eudicots comprise approximately 75% of all an-
sclereids in the leaf mesophyll, continuous tectum in the pol- giosperm species (Drinnan et al., 1994) and are strongly sup-
Gunnerales. Gunnerales comprise two small families, Gun-

neraceae (Gunnera with approximately 40 species) and My-
rothamnaceae (Myrothamnus with two species) (or Gunnera-
ceae s.l. sensu APG II, 2003). This relationship had not pre-
viously been suggested on the basis of morphology because
the two genera differ substantially, although molecular support
for their relationship is very strong. Gunneraceae have a dim-
erous perianth (Drinnan et al., 1994), as do many of the basal
eudicot lineages; dimery probably typifies Buxaceae, Trochod-
endraceae, and Proteaceae (but perhaps not the Platanus lin-
eage) and is common and perhaps ancestral in Ranunculales
(van Tieghem, 1897; Drinnan et al., 1994; Douglas and Tucker,
1996). The placement of Gunnerales as sister to the rest of the
core eudicots implies that the pentamerous perianth typical of
most core eudicots was derived from dimerous ancestors
(Ronse De Craene et al., 2003; Soltis et al., 2003).
‘‘Berberidopsidales’’. Like Gunnerales, ‘‘Berberidopsida-

les’’ comprise two small and morphologically disparate fami-
lies: Berberidopsidaceae (Berberidopsis and Streptothamnus,
which is sometimes included in Berberidopsis) and Aextoxi-
Fig. 3. Summary of phylogenetic relationships among clades of eudicots, caceae (Aextoxicon, one species). Although this clade has not
based on Hoot et al. (1999), D. Soltis et al. (2000, 2003), and Kim et al. been recognized at the ordinal level by APG (hence the quo-
(2004). tation marks), it is strongly supported by molecular data and
is isolated from all other clades. Furthermore, both families
have encyclocytic stomata, a rare character and an apparent
ported by molecular data. However, only a single morpholog- synapomorphy for this clade (Soltis et al., in press-b).
ical synapomorphy—triaperturate pollen—has been identified.
This pollen type is clearly distinct from the uniaperturate pol- Saxifragales. Saxifragales are a morphologically eclectic
len of basal angiosperms, monocots, and all other seed plants, clade of annual and perennial herbs, succulents, aquatics,
allowing easy assignment of fossil pollen to the eudicots. The shrubs, vines, and large trees. Prior to molecular phylogenetics
fossil pollen record indicates that the eudicots appeared 125 (Morgan and Soltis, 1993; Fishbein et al., 2001), members of
mya, shortly after the origin of the angiosperms themselves. this clade were classified in three of Cronquist’s (1981) six
The extensive fossil pollen collections worldwide, coupled subclasses of dicots (see also Takhtajan, 1997). Possible syn-
with solid dates, make it unlikely that the eudicots arose much apomorphies for this clade include a partially fused bicarpel-
before this time. Although triaperturate pollen is a synapo- late gynoecium, a hypanthium, and glandular leaf teeth (Judd
morphy for this clade, not all eudicots have triaperturate pollen et al., 2002); aspects of leaf venation and wood anatomy are
due to subsequent changes in pollen structure. The eudicots similar in the woody members of the clade. The best known
(referred to instead as tricolpates) are covered in greater detail of the 13 families in this clade are Saxifragaceae, Crassula-
by Judd and Olmstead (2004). ceae, Grossulariaceae, Paeoniaceae, and Hamamelidaceae.
Molecular studies continue to reveal new, unexpected mem-
bers of this clade, such as Peridiscaceae (Davis and Chase,
Basal lineages—A basal grade of five lineages (Ranuncu- 2004), a family placed in Malpighiales in APG II (2003).
lales, Proteales, Sabiaceae, Trochodendraceae, and Buxaceae) Monophyly of Saxifragales is strongly supported, but the
subtends the large clade of core eudicots (Hoot et al., 1999; position of this clade relative to other core eudicots remains
D. Soltis et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2004; Fig. 3). Although uncertain. Some analyses have placed it as sister to the rosids,
Ranunculales are supported as the sister to all other eudicots, although with weak support (e.g., D. Soltis et al., 2000). The
the relative placements of the remaining four lineages of basal simple, pentamerous flowers have long been thought to indi-
eudicots are not clear and require additional study. cate a relationship with Rosaceae and other rosids, but whether
these floral features are synapomorphies for Saxifragales 1
Core eudicots—The core eudicots comprise the vast major- rosids or symplesiomorphies (i.e., shared ancestral features) is
ity of eudicot species. Seven major clades (Gunnerales, ‘‘Ber- unclear. Despite the fairly constant general floral structure of
beridopsidales,’’ Saxifragales, Santalales, Caryophyllales, ros- Saxifragales, certain aspects of floral evolution within this
ids, and asterids) have been recognized, but the relationships clade appear to be quite labile, especially ovary position (e.g.,
among these clades are not clear (Figs. 1, 3; D. Soltis et al., Kuzoff et al., 2001). Additional research is needed to resolve
2000). The topology indicates a rapid radiation, but additional the relationship of Saxifragales within the core eudicots.
data are needed to evaluate this hypothesis. Recent studies
have identified Gunnerales as the sister to all other core eu- Santalales. The seven families of Santalales are united by
dicots (Hilu et al., 2003; Soltis et al., 2003). Several important molecular characters and aspects of their parasitic habit and
changes in floral genes appear to coincide with the origin of are a strongly supported clade of core eudicots. However, re-
core eudicots, including duplication of AP3 yielding the lationships of Santalales to other core eudicots are not clear,
euAP3 lineage (Kramer et al., 1998) and the origin of Apetala1 although they occasionally appear near the asterids in at least
(Litt and Irish, 2003). some shortest trees. Furthermore, relationships within this
clade have not yet been resolved, and the monophyly of some dae. The rosids comprise 140 families and close to one-third
of the currently recognized families has not been supported by of all angiosperm species. Clear synapomorphies for the rosids
molecular evidence. The lack of resolution within Santalales have not been identified, although most rosids share several
may be explained in part by apparently rapid rates of molec- morphological and anatomical features, such as nuclear en-
ular evolution in all three plant genomes (e.g., Nickrent and dosperm development, reticulate pollen exine, generally sim-
Starr, 1994; Nickrent et al., 1998). Aerial hemiparasites (mis- ple perforations of vessel end-walls, alternate intervessel pit-
tletoes) have evolved multiple times in Santalales. ting, mucilaginous leaf epidermis, and two or more whorls of
stamens, plus ellagic acid (Hufford, 1992; Nandi et al., 1998).
Caryophyllales. The core of Caryophyllales sensu APG II Relationships within rosids are not clearly resolved. Vita-
(2003) was considered a closely related group of families as ceae may be sister to the rosids, but this relationship is not
long ago as the mid-nineteenth century (e.g., Braun, 1864; strongly supported (Fig. 3; Savolainen et al., 2000a, b; D. Sol-
Eichler, 1876) and was formally recognized as the Centro- tis et al., 2000), and Saxifragales may be sister to the Vitaceae
spermae by Harms (1934) based on morphological and em- 1 rosids clade, but this relationship is not strongly supported
bryological characters. Recent molecular studies have identi- either (D. Soltis et al., 2000). Two large subclades of rosids,
fied a larger clade (Caryophyllales sensu APG II) that includes eurosids I (fabids) and II (malvids), have been identified
the Caryophyllidae of Cronquist (1981; i.e., Caryophyllales, through molecular analyses (e.g., Chase et al., 1993; Savolai-
Polygonales, and Plumbaginales) plus a number of families nen et al., 2000a, b; D. Soltis et al., 2000; Fig. 1). However,
previously considered distantly related to Caryophyllales, in- some orders and families (e.g., Crossosomatales, Geraniales,
cluding the carnivorous sundews and Venus’ flytrap (Droser- Myrtales) do not fit into either eurosid I or eurosid II. The
aceae) and Old World pitcher plants (Nepenthaceae). eurosid I clade comprises Celastrales, Cucurbitales, Fabales,
Relationships of Caryophyllales to other core eudicots are Fagales, Zygophyllales, Malpighiales, Oxalidales, and Ro-
not clear, although Dilleniaceae are sister to Caryophyllales in sales. Of these, Cucurbitales, Fabales, Fagales, and Rosales
some analyses, although with low support (e.g., Chase and form the ‘‘nitrogen-fixing clade,’’ a clade that contains all an-
Albert, 1998; D. Soltis et al., 2000; Fig. 3), and some shortest giosperms known to have symbiotic relationships with nodu-
trees have indicated a possible relationship with the asterids. lating nitrogen-fixing bacteria (see D. Soltis et al., 1995, 1997,
Within Caryophyllales, there are two large clades, core and 2000). The placements in previous classifications of the spe-
noncore Caryophyllales (Cuénoud et al., 2002), that corre- cies that exhibit this symbiosis indicated that symbiotic rela-
spond to Caryophyllales and Polygonales sensu Judd et al. tionships with nodulating bacteria must have occurred multiple
(2002). The core Caryophyllales clade generally corresponds times. Current phylogenetic evidence instead indicates a single
to Caryophyllales of recent classifications (e.g., Cronquist, origin of the predisposition for symbiosis, with perhaps both
1981; Takhtajan, 1997) and comprises 19 families, although gains and losses of the symbiotic relationship within the nitro-
some currently recognized families (e.g., Portulacaceae, Phy- gen-fixing clade itself (Soltis et al., 1995; Swensen, 1996).
tolaccaceae) are poly- or paraphyletic and require recircum- Multiple gains of this association may be more parsimonious
scription (Cuénoud et al., 2002). Synapomorphies for this than a single gain followed by multiple losses (Swensen,
clade include unilacunar nodes, stems with concentric rings of 1996). The smaller eurosid II clade is composed of Brassi-
xylem and phloem, phloem sieve tubes with plastids with a cales, Malvales, Sapindales, and Tapisciaceae. Brassicales in-
peripheral ring of proteinaceous filaments and a central protein clude all angiosperms known to produce glucosinolates, a
crystal, betalains (rather than anthocyanins), loss of the intron form of chemical defense, except Drypetes and Putranjiva of
in the plastid gene rpl2, a single perianth whorl, free central the distantly related rosid family Putranjivaceae of Malpighi-
to basal placentation, an embryo curved around the seed, and ales (e.g., Rodman, 1991; Rodman et al., 1993, 1998). Previ-
presence of perisperm with little or no endosperm (Judd et al., ous classifications led to the conclusion that glucosinolate pro-
2002 and references therein). The noncore clade has been duction had evolved several times in the angiosperms; current
identified on the basis of molecular data and comprises fami- phylogenetic evidence indicates instead only two such origins.
lies classified in Cronquist’s (1981) Rosidae and Dilleniidae. In addition to the large eurosid I and II clades, additional
Most surprising is the inclusion in this clade of the carnivorous smaller clades have been recognized (Crossosomatales, Myr-
Droseraceae and Nepenthaceae. Synapomorphies for the non- tales, Geraniales, and Picramniaceae), but their relationships
core clade are scattered secretory cells containing plumbagin, to each other and to eurosids I and II are not clear. Further-
an indumentum of stalked, gland-headed hairs, basal placen- more, relationships within eurosids I and II are not fully re-
tation, and starchy endosperm (Judd et al., 2002). solved, and much additional work is needed to reconstruct
Many Caryophyllales are adapted to harsh environments, relationships within the rosid clade. In fact, the rosids repre-
such as high-alkaline soils, high-salt conditions, extreme arid- sent the largest remaining problematic group of angiosperms.
ity, and nutrient-poor soils (see descriptions of component Several factors may have contributed to the lack of resolu-
families in Heywood, 1993; Judd et al., 2002). Various adap- tion of relationships within the rosids. The clade is old, dating
tations, such as Crassulacean acid metabolism and C4 photo- at least to the late Santonian to Turonian (approximately 84–
synthesis, succulence, carnivory, and salt secretion, have 89.5 mya; Crepet and Nixon, 1998; Magallón et al., 1999),
evolved multiple times (e.g., Juniper et al., 1989; Meimberg and possibly to 94 mya, based on an unnamed apparently rosid
et al., 2000; Pyankov et al., 2001; Cameron et al., 2002) and flower from the Dakota Formation in Nebraska (Basinger and
have allowed Caryophyllales to exploit these habitats. Dilcher, 1984). Furthermore, molecular-based age estimates of
Myrtales using penalized likelihood (Sanderson, 2002) placed
Rosids. The rosid clade is broader than the traditional sub- the crown radiation of Myrtales at approximately 110 mya
class Rosidae (Cronquist, 1981; Takhtajan, 1980, 1997), also (Sytsma et al., in press), implying an even older age for the
encompassing many families formerly classified in the poly- rosids. The age of the rosid clade is therefore sufficient to have
phyletic subclasses Magnoliidae, Dilleniidae, and Hamameli- allowed substantial morphological and molecular diversifica-
tion and speciation, although the similar age of the monocots acters that distinguish euasterids I and II are truly synapo-
has not similarly obscured relationships within that clade. The morphies for these clades and which are symplesiomorphies;
rosid clade may have diversified via a series of radiations (P. both reversals and parallelisms have contributed to complex
Soltis et al., 2004), resulting in a pattern of polytomies (see patterns of morphological evolution in the asterids (Albach et
Remaining Problems and Future Prospects). Furthermore, sub- al., 2001a; Bremer et al., 2001). The euasterid II clade is com-
tle nonmolecular features that could potentially unite large posed of Dipsacales, Aquifoliales, Apiales, and Asterales, plus
groups of families within the rosids have not generally been Bruniaceae 1 Columelliaceae, a small clade of Tribelaceae,
identified because, until the results of molecular analyses, Polyosmaceae, Escalloniaceae, and Eremosynaceae, and pos-
many families of rosids were not suspected of being closely sibly Paracryphiaceae. The euasterid II clade includes families
related, having been placed in four subclasses of dicots (Mag- previously classified in Asteridae and Rosidae (Cronquist,
noliidae, Hamamelidae, Dilleniidae, and Rosidae), and were 1981, 1988).
therefore not included together in most previous analyses and
treatments. Gaps in morphological data sets across the rosids
have likewise made it difficult to identify synapomorphies for The supertree approach—The relationships described in
groups of families. this paper are all based on analyses that use the ‘‘supermatrix’’
approach, that is, a taxon-by-character data matrix is assem-
Asterids. Like rosids, asterids are a large clade, encompass- bled and analyzed, directly producing a tree or set of trees. A
ing nearly one-third of all angiosperm species (80 000 species) problem with this approach is that comprehensive data sets
and classified in 114 families (Albach et al., 2001b). However, become extremely large, and analyses become increasingly
unlike the rosids, a group of families corresponding closely to computationally complex and time-consuming. In addition,
the asterids has been recognized on morphological grounds for different gene sets have not always sampled the same taxa,
over 200 years (de Jussieu, 1789; Reichenbach, 1828; Warm-
requiring assumptions of generic or familial monophyly in the
ing, 1879), and several morphological and chemical features
appear to unite all or most asterids. Most notable are iridoid formation of ‘‘mosaic’’ taxa and/or leading to large amounts
chemical compounds (e.g., Jensen, 1992), sympetalous corol- of missing data. An alternative to the supermatrix approach is
las, unitegmic and tenuinucellate ovules, and cellular endo- the supertree approach (e.g., Baum, 1992; Ragan, 1992; Purv-
sperm development; however, it is still unclear which of these is, 1995; Ronquist, 1996; Bininda-Emonds and Bryant, 1998;
features are actually synapomorphies for asterids (cf. Albach Sanderson et al., 1998), in which trees that overlap in at least
et al., 2001a; Judd et al., 2002). The asterid clade is broader a single taxon may be joined together algorithmically. Al-
than Asteridae of recent classifications (e.g., Cronquist, 1981; though less satisfying than the supermatrix approach in relat-
Takhtajan, 1980, 1997) and includes also members of the poly- ing support or conflict for a topology to specific characters,
phyletic subclasses Hamamelidae, Dilleniidae, and Rosidae the supertree approach is a viable alternative when multiple
(Olmstead et al., 1992, 1993, 2000; Chase et al., 1993; D. data sets overlap in only a small fraction of the taxa or when
Soltis et al., 1997, 2000; Soltis et al., 1999; Savolainen et al., the number of taxa to be analyzed is very large. Furthermore,
2000a, b). the two approaches seem to give similar results (e.g., Salamin
Many relationships within asterids were resolved by angio- et al., 2002).
sperm-wide analyses, but asterids have also been analyzed in The supertree approach has not been applied extensively to
greater detail with extensive taxon sampling and data from angiosperms, but it offers an opportunity for representation of
four (Albach et al., 2001b) and six (Bremer et al., 2002) loci. greater numbers of taxa than the supermatrix analyses con-
These studies confirmed earlier results of four major clades ducted to date. A recent supertree analysis combined trees that
within asterids (Fig. 1): Cornales are sister to all other asterids, included all angiosperm families and produced the first com-
with Ericales sister to a clade of euasterids I 1 euasterids II. prehensive family-level phylogenetic tree for angiosperms
The families of Cornales and Ericales were not considered (Davies et al., 2004). The basic framework of the angiosperm
closely related to those of Asteridae in previous classifications supertree is largely consistent with the results of large, mul-
and were placed instead mostly in Rosidae and Dilleniidae, tigene analyses of exemplar taxa (e.g., D. Soltis et al., 2000)
respectively. Euasterids are mostly united by flowers with epi- on which it was based. Amborella is sister to all other angio-
petalous stamens that equal the number of corolla lobes and a sperms, followed by Nymphaeaceae, Austrabaileyales, a clade
gynoecium of two fused carpels. of monocots 1 Ceratophyllaceae, Chloranthaceae, and a clade
Within the euasterids, the euasterid I (or lamiid, Bremer et
of magnoliids 1 eudicots. Relationships within monocots,
al., 2002) and euasterid II (or campanulid, Bremer et al., 2002)
clades are sisters and can be distinguished both morphologi- magnoliids, and eudicots are also mostly consistent with the
cally and molecularly (Albach et al., 2001b; Bremer et al., results of the supermatrix analyses. This congruence indicates
2001; Bremer et al., 2002). Most members of euasterids I have that the placement of those taxa not included in the super-
opposite leaves, entire leaf margins, hypogynous flowers, matrix analyses may be correct, inasmuch as the data set can
‘‘early sympetaly’’ with a ring-shaped primordium, fusion of convey. Furthermore, some clades that have been difficult to
stamen filaments to the corolla tube, and capsular fruits (Bre- place appear in resolved locations. For example, Caryophyl-
mer et al., 2001). The euasterid I clade comprises Garryales, lales are sister to the asterids, and Saxifragales are sister to the
Gentianales, Solanales, and Lamiales, plus Boraginaceae, Vah- rosids, positions they occupy in some of the shortest trees ob-
liaceae, and Oncothecaceae 1 Icacinaceae (APG II, 2003). tained in other analyses but not in the strict consensus trees
Most taxa of euasterids II have alternate leaves, serrate-dentate (e.g., D. Soltis et al., 2000). Although the best methods of
leaf margins, epigynous flowers, ‘‘late sympetaly’’ with dis- supertree construction remain under debate, supertree ap-
tinct petal primordia, free stamen filaments, and indehiscent proaches seem a viable alternative to supermatrix analyses as
fruits (Bremer et al., 2001). It is unclear which of the char- data sets continue to grow.
REMAINING PROBLEMS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS the identification of nonmolecular synapomorphies is still
needed for many clades. This task will require new morpho-
Despite tremendous progress in angiosperm phylogenetics logical and molecular data for many groups, including both a
during the past 10 years, several difficult problems remain. search for new characters and filling in data for many families.
Most prominent are (1) relationships among monocots, Chlor- Finally, all of this new information—sequences, trees, mor-
anthaceae, magnoliids, and eudicots, (2) branching order phological data—will need to be managed in such a way as
among basal eudicots, (3) relationships among the major to make it easily accessible to all who are interested via public
clades of core eudicots, (4) relationships within rosids, (5) re- databases. The development and maintenance of informatics
lationships of the many lineages of parasitic plants (although tools and resources are therefore also major challenges that lie
this problem has been addressed recently by Barkman et al., ahead for angiosperm systematics. Informatics issues may be-
2004), and (6) integration of fossils with extant taxa into a come particularly important as new methods are needed to
comprehensive tree of angiosperm phylogeny. Solving these analyze large amounts of sequence data for more taxa than
problems will require coordinated efforts among angiosperm have yet been analyzed together and to develop algorithms and
systematists and paleobotanists and a large amount of molec- methods for constructing supertrees to link new trees with
ular (and other, where appropriate) data. those that have been archived.
At least some of those nodes that remain poorly resolved The phylogenetic information currently available for angio-
(e.g., basal eudicots, core eudicots, rosids) may be the results sperms, and that to come, is fundamentally important for or-
of rapid radiations (see P. Soltis et al., 2004). If so, increased ganizing all that is known about the angiosperm branch of the
sampling of molecular characters coupled with inclusion of tree of life. However, this phylogenetic information is also a
additional taxa (if a clade has not yet been thoroughly sam- prerequisite for addressing basic questions in a number of oth-
pled) may help to resolve at least some of the remaining po- er fields, ranging from genomics to ecology.
lytomies. For example, the addition of 26S rDNA sequences
to the three-gene data set of D. Soltis et al. (2000) for a subset LITERATURE CITED
of eudicots provided evidence for Gunnerales as the sister to
the remaining lineages of core eudicots (D. Soltis et al., 2003), ALBACH, D., P. S. SOLTIS, AND D. E. SOLTIS. 2001a. Patterns of embryolog-
and increased character sampling for data sets of more than ical and biochemical evolution in the asterids. Systematic Biology 26:
100 taxa improved relationships among basal angiosperms 242–262.
(Zanis et al., 2002) and within monocots (e.g., Chase et al., in ALBACH, D. C., P. S. SOLTIS, D. E. SOLTIS, AND R. G. OLMSTEAD. 2001b.
press). However, if the lack of resolution is due to a true ra- Phylogenetic analysis of the Asteridae s.l. using sequences of four genes.
Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 88: 163–212.
diation, it may not be possible to resolve these nodes. Like- ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENY GROUP (APG). 1998. An ordinal classification for
wise, if poor resolution has resulted from other factors, such the families of flowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden
as extinction, inadequate sampling of extant lineages, ancient 85: 531–553.
reticulation, horizontal gene transfer, or unequal evolutionary ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENY GROUP (APG II). 2003. An update of the Angio-
rates among lineages, then the prospects for resolution, using sperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flow-
currently available data and methods of analysis, are also poor. ering plants: APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141: 399–
436.
Estimates of the age of the angiosperms and the timing of BAILLON, H. 1869. Histoires des plantes, vol. 1. L. Hachette & Cie, Paris,
important divergences based on molecular data do not gener- France.
ally agree with each other (ranging from ;125 to .400 mya) BARKMAN, T. J., G. CHENERY, J. R. MCNEAL, J. LYONS-WEILER, AND C. W.
or with dates determined from the fossil record (see e.g., San- DE PAMPHILIS. 2000. Independent and combined analyses of sequences
derson and Doyle, 2001; P. Soltis et al., 2002; Sanderson et from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering
al., 2004). Although most molecular-based ages for angio- plant phylogeny. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA
97: 13166–13171.
sperms, and other groups of organisms (e.g., Heckman et al., BARKMAN, T. J., S.-H. LIM, K. M. SALLEH, AND J. NAIS. 2004. Mitochondrial
2001), are much older than the fossil record suggests, many DNA sequences reveal the photosynthetic relatives of Rafflesia, the
recent estimates based on methods that do not assume equal world’s largest flower. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
rates of evolutionary change among lineages are similar to, if USA 101: 787–792.
slightly older than, dates inferred from the fossil record (San- BASINGER, J., AND D. L. DILCHER. 1984. Ancient bisexual flowers. Science
derson et al., 2004). Furthermore, estimated ages for specific 224: 511–513.
BAUM, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for
angiosperm clades are generally older than inferences from the phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Tax-
fossil record (e.g., Wikström et al., 2001, compared with Ma- on 41: 3–10.
gallón et al., 1999), but these discrepancies are much smaller BEHNKE, H.-D. 1969. Die Siebrohren-Plastiden bei Monocotlen. Nauturwis-
than those reported for the age of the angiosperms. However, senschaften 55: 140–141.
room for further reconciliation of age estimates inferred from BHARATHAN, G., AND E. A. ZIMMER. 1995. Early branching events in mono-
fossils and molecular data remains. For example, given the cotyledons—partial 18S ribosomal DNA sequence analysis. In P. J. Ru-
dall, P. J. Cribb, D. F. Cutler, and C. J. Humphries [eds.], Monocotyle-
numerous diverse fossils reported from as early as 115–125 dons: systematics and evolution, 81–107. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,
mya, perhaps the earliest angiosperms were older than the con- London, UK.
servative estimate of ;130 mya. Conversely, molecular meth- BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., AND H. N. BRYANT. 1998. The properties of
ods tend to overestimate ages (Rodrı́guez-Trelles et al., 2002), matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Systematic Biology 47:
so refinement of dating approaches is needed to compensate 497–508.
for this bias. BORSCH, T., K. W. HILU, D. QUANDT, V. WILDE, C. NEINHUIS, AND W.
BARTHLOTT. 2003. Non-coding plastid trnT-trnF sequences reveal a
Many of the large clades identified through analysis of mo- highly supported phylogeny of basal angiosperms. Journal of Evolution-
lecular data are not easily recognized morphologically. Al- ary Biology 15: 558–567.
though possible synapomorphies for many clades have been BRAUN, A. 1864. Uebersicht der naturlichen Systems nach der Anordnung
proposed by Doyle and Endress (2000) and Judd et al. (2002), derselben. In P. Ascherson [ed.], Flora der Provinz Brandenburg, der
Altmark und des Herzogthums Magdeburg, vol. 1, 22–67. Hirschwald, cotyledons: structure, evolution and taxonomy. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Berlin, Germany. Germany.
BREMER, B., K. BREMER, N. HEIDARI, P. ERIXON, R. G. OLMSTEAD, A. A. DAVIES, T. J., T. G. BARRACLOUGH, M. W. CHASE, P. S. SOLTIS, D. E. SOLTIS,
ANDERBERG, M. KÄLLERSJÖ, AND E. BARKHORDARIAN. 2002. Phylo- AND V. SAVOLAINEN. 2004. Darwin’s abominable mystery: insights from
genetics of asterids based on 3 coding and 3 non-coding chloroplast DNA a supertree of the angiosperms. Proceedings of the National Academy of
markers and the utility of non-coding DNA at higher taxonomic levels. Sciences, USA 101: 1904–1909.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 24: 274–301. DAVIS, C. C., AND M. W. CHASE. 2004. Elatinaceae are sister to Malpighi-
BREMER, K. 2000. Early Cretaceous lineages of monocot flowering plants. aceae; Peridiscaceae belong to Saxifragales. American Journal of Botany
Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences, USA 97: 4707–4711. 91: 262–273.
BREMER, K., A. BACKLUND, B. SENNBLAD, U. SWENSON, K. ANDREASEN, DAVIS, J. I., M. P. SIMMONS, D. W. STEVENSON, AND J. F. WENDEL. 1998.
M. HJERTSON, J. LUNDBERG, M. BACKLUND, AND B. BREMER. 2001. A Data decisiveness, data quality, and incongruence in phylogenetic anal-
phylogenetic analysis of 1001 genera and 501 families of euasterids ysis: an example from the monocotyledons using mitochondrial atpA
based on morphological and molecular data with notes on possible higher sequences. Systematic Biology 47: 282–310.
level morphological synapomorphies. Plant Systematics and Evolution DAVIS, J. I., D. W. STEVENSON, G. PETERSEN, O. SEBERG, L. M. CAMPBELL,
229: 137–169. J. V. FREUDENSTEIN, D. H. GOLDMAN, C. R. HARDY, F. A. MICHELAN-
BURLEIGH, J. G., AND S. MATHEWS. 2004. Phylogenetic signal in nucleotide GELI, M. P. SIMMONS, C. D. SPECHT, F. VERGARA-SILVA, AND M. A.
data from seed plants: Implications for resolving the seed plant tree of GANDOLFO. In press. A phylogeny of the monocots, as inferred from
life. American Journal of Botany 91: 1599–1613. rbcL and atpA sequence variation. Systematic Botany: in press.
CAMERON, K. M., K. J. WURDACK, AND R. W. JOBSON. 2002. Molecular DE JUSSIEU, A. L. 1789. Genera plantarum secundum ordines naturals dis-
evidence for the common origin of snap-trees among carnivorous plants. posita. Heissant and Barrois, Paris, France.
American Journal of Botany 89: 1503–1509. DEROIN, T. 2000. Notes on the vascular anatomy of the fruit of Takhtajania
CHASE, M. W. 2004. Monocot relationships: an overview. American Journal (Winteraceae) and its interpretation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical
of Botany 91: 1645–1656. Garden 87: 398–406.
CHASE, M. W., AND V. A. ALBERT. 1998. A perspective on the contribution DILCHER, D. L. 1989. The occurrence of fruits with affinities to Ceratophyl-
of plastid rbcL DNA sequences to angiosperm phylogenetics. In D. E. laceae in lower and mid-Cretaceous sediments. American Journal of Bot-
Soltis, P. S. Soltis, and J. J. Doyle [eds.], Molecular systematics of plants, any (Supplement) 76: 162.
vol. 2, DNA sequencing, 488–507. Kluwer, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. DILCHER, D. L., AND P. R. CRANE. 1984. Archaeanthus: an early angiosperm
CHASE, M. W., D. E. SOLTIS, R. G. OLMSTEAD, D. MORGAN, D. H. LES, B. from the Cenomanian of the western interior of North America. Annals
D. MISHLER, M. R. DUVALL, R. A. PRICE, H. G. HILLS, Y.-L. QIU, K. of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 351–383.
A. KRON, J. H. RETTIG, E. CONTI, J. D. PALMER, J. R. MANHART, K. J. DONOGHUE, M. J., AND J. A. DOYLE. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of seed
SYTSMA, H. J. MICHAELS, W. J. KRESS, K. G. KAROL, W. D. CLARK, plants and angiosperms based on morphological characters. In K. Bremer
M. HEDREN, B. S. GAUT, R. K. JANSEN, K.-J. KIM, C. F. WIMPEE, J. F. and H. Jörnvall [eds.], The hierarchy of life: molecules and morphology
SMITH, G. R. FURNIER, S. H. STRAUSS, Q.-Y. XIANG, G. M. PLUNKETT, in phylogenetic studies, 181–193. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amster-
P. S. SOLTIS, S. M. SWENSEN, S. E. WILLIAMS, P. A. GADEK, C. J. QUINN, dam, Netherlands.
L. E. EGUIARTE, E. GOLENBERG, G. H. LEARN, JR., S. W. GRAHAM, S. DOUGLAS, A., AND S. C. TUCKER. 1996. Comparative floral ontogenies
C. H. BARRETT, S. DAYANANDAN, AND V. A. ALBERT. 1993. Phyloge- among Persoonioideae including Bellendena (Proteaceae). American
netics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid Journal of Botany 83: 1528–1555.
gene rbcL. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 528–580. DOYLE, J. A., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1986. Seed plant phylogeny and the
CHASE, M. W., D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, P. J. RUDALL, M. F. FAY, W. H. origin of the angiosperms: an experimental cladistic approach. Botanical
HAHN, S. SULLIVAN, J. JOSEPH, T. GIVNISH, K. J. SYTSMA, AND J. C. Review 52: 321–431.
PIRES. 2000. Higher-level systematics of the monocotyledons: an as- DOYLE, J. A., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1992. Fossils and seed plant phylogeny
sessment of current knowledge and a new classification. In K. L. Wilson reanalzyed. Brittonia 44: 89–106.
and D. A. Morrison [eds.], Monocots systematics and evolution, 3–16. DOYLE, J. A., AND P. K. ENDRESS. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic anal-
CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia. yses of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular
CHASE, M. W., M. F. FAY, D. S. DEVEY, O. MAURIN, J. DAVIES, Y. PILLON, data. International Journal of Plant Sciences 161(Supplement): S121–
G. PETERSEN, O. SEBERG, M. N. TAMURA, C. B. ASMUSSEN, K. HILU, S153.
T. BORSCH, J. I. DAVIS, D. W. STEVENSON, J. C. PIRES, T. J. GIVNISH, DOYLE, J. A., H. EKLUND, AND P. S. HERENDEEN. 2003. Floral evolution in
K. J. SYTSMA, AND S. W. GRAHAM. In press. Multi-gene analyses of Chloranthaceae: implications of a morphological phylogenetic analysis.
monocot relationships: a summary. In J. T. Columbus, E. A. Friar, C. W. International Journal of Plant Sciences 164(Supplement): S365–S382.
Hamilton, J. M. Porter, L. M. Prince, and M. G. Simpson [eds.], Mono- DRINNAN, A. N., P. R. CRANE, AND S. B. HOOT. 1994. Patterns of floral
cots: comparative biology and evolution. Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gar- evolution in the early diversification of non-magnoliid dicotyledons (eu-
den, Claremont, California, USA. dicots). Plant Systematics and Evolution 8(Supplement): 93–122.
COUPER, R. A. 1958. British Mesozoic microspores and pollen grains: a sys- DUVALL, M. R., G. H. LEARN, L. E. EGUIARTE, AND M. T. CLEGG. 1993.
tematic and stratigraphic study. Palaeontographica, Abteilung B, Paläo- Phylogenetic analysis of rbcL sequences identifies Acorus calamus as the
phytologie 103: 75–179. primal extant monocotyledon. Proceedings of the National Academy of
CRANE, P. R., E. M. FRIIS, AND K. R. PEDERSEN. 1995. The origin and early Sciences, USA 90: 4611–4644.
diversification of angiosperms. Nature 374: 27–33. EICHLER, A. 1875–1878. Blüthendiagramme I/II. Engelmann, Leipzig, Ger-
CRANE, P. R., P. S. HERENDEEN, AND E. M. FRIIS. 2004. Fossils and plant many.
phylogeny. American Journal of Botany 91: 1683–1699. EKLUND, H., J. A. DOYLE, AND P. S. HERENDEEN. 2004. Morphological phy-
CREPET, W., AND K. NIXON. 1998. Fossil Clusiaceae from the Late Creta- logenetic analysis of living and fossil Chloranthaceae. International
ceous (Turonian) of New Jersey and implications regarding the history Journal of Plant Sciences 165: 107–151.
of bee pollination. American Journal of Botany 85: 1122–1133. ENDRESS, P. K. 1986. Reproductive structures and phylogenetic significance
CRONQUIST, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering of extant primitive angiosperms. Plant Systematic Evolution 152: 1–28.
plants. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA. ENDRESS, P. K. 2001. The flowers in extant basal angiosperms and inferences
CRONQUIST, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants, on ancestral flowers. International Journal of Plant Sciences 162: 1111–
2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USA. 1140.
CUÉNOUD, P., V. SAVOLAINEN, L. W. CHATROU, M. POWELL, R. J. GRAYER, ENDRESS, P. K., AND A. IGERSHEIM. 1997. Gynoecium diversity and system-
AND M. W. CHASE. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Caryophyllales atics of the Laurales. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 125: 93–
based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid rbcL, atpB, and matK DNA 168.
sequences. American Journal of Botany 89: 132–144. ENDRESS, P. K., AND A. IGERSHEIM. 2000a. Gynoecium structure and evo-
DAHLGREN, R. 1980. A revised system of classification of the angiosperms. lution in basal angiosperms. International Journal of Plant Sciences
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 80: 91–124. 161(Supplement): S211–S223.
DAHLGREN, R., H. CLIFFORD, AND P. YEO. 1985. The families of the mono- ENDRESS, P. K., AND A. IGERSHEIM. 2000b. The reproductive structures of
the basal angiosperm Amborella trichopoda (Amborellaceae). Interna- HILU, K. W., T. BORSCH, K. MULLER, D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, V. SAVO-
tional Journal of Plant Sciences 161(Supplement): S237–S248. LAINEN, M. CHASE, M. POWELL, L. ALICE, R. EVANS, H. SAUQUET, C.
FEILD, T. S., M. A. ZWEINIECKI, T. BRODRIBB, T. JAFFRÉ, M. J. DONOGHUE, NEINHUIS, T. SLOTTA, J. ROHWER, AND L. CHATROU. 2003. Inference
AND N. M. HOLBROOK. 2000. Structure and function of tracheary ele- of angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence information. Ameri-
ments in Amborella trichopoda. International Journal of Plant Sciences can Journal of Botany 90: 1758–1776.
161: 705–712. HOOT, S. B., S. MAGALLÓN, AND P. R. CRANE. 1999. Phylogeny of basal
FISHBEIN, M., C. HIBSCH-JETTER, D. E. SOLTIS, AND L. HUFFORD. 2001. eudicots based on three molecular data sets: atpB, rbcL, and 18S nuclear
Phylogeny of Saxifragales (angiosperms, eudicots): analysis of a rapid, ribosomal DNA sequences. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 86:
ancient radiation. Systematic Biology 50: 817–847. 1–32.
FRIIS, E. M., K. R. PEDERSEN, AND P. R. CRANE. 2000. Reproductive structure HUFFORD, L. 1992. Rosidae and their relationships to other nonmagnoliid
and organization of basal angiosperms from the early Cretaceous (Bar- dicotyledons: a phylogenetic analysis using morphological and chemical
remian or Aptian) of western Portugal. International Journal of Plant data. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 79: 218–248.
Sciences 161(Supplement): S169–S182. JENSEN, S. R. 1992. Systematic implications of the distribution of iridoids
FRIIS, E. M., K. R. PEDERSEN, AND P. R. CRANE. 2001. Fossil evidence of and other chemical compounds in the Loganiaceae and other families of
water lilies in the Early Cretaceous. Nature 410: 357–360. the Asteridae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 79: 284–302.
FRIIS, E. M., J. A. DOYLE, P. K. ENDRESS, AND Q. LENG. 2003. Archaefruc- JUDD, W. S., AND R. G. OLMSTEAD. 2004. A survey of tricolpate (eudicot)
tus—angiosperm precursor or specialized early angiosperm? Trends in phylogeny. American Journal of Botany 91: 1627–1644.
Plant Science 8: 369–373. JUDD, W. S., C. S. CAMPBELL, E. A. KELLOGG, P. F. STEVENS, AND M. J.
GANDOLFO, M. A., K. C. NIXON, AND W. L. CREPET. 2002. Triuridaceae DONOGHUE. 2002. Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach. Sinauer
fossil flowers from the Upper Cretaceous of New Jersey. American Jour- Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.
nal of Botany 89: 1940–1957. JUNIPER, B. E., R. J. ROBINS, AND D. M. JOEL. 1989. The carnivorous plants.
GANDOLFO, M. A., K. C. NIXON, AND W. L. CREPET. 2004. Cretaceous flow- Academic Press, London, UK.
ers of Nymphaeaceae and implications for complex insect entrapment KEATING, R. C. 2000. Anatomy of the young vegetative shoot of Takhtajania
pollinations mechanisms in early Angiosperms. Proceedings of the Na- perrieri (Winteraceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 87:
tional Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 8056–8060. 335–346.
GAUT, B. S., B. R. MORTON, B. M. MCCAIG, AND M. T. CLEGG. 1996. Sub- KIM, S., V. A. ALBERT, M.-J. YOO, J. S. FARRIS, M. ZANIS, P. S. SOLTIS,
stitution rate comparisons between grasses and palms: synonymous rate AND D. E. SOLTIS. In press. Pre-angiosperm duplication of floral genes
differences at the nuclear gene Adh parallel rate differences at the plastid and regulatory tinkering at the base of flowering plants. American Jour-
gene rbcL. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 93: nal of Botany.
10274–10279. KIM, S., D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, M. J. ZANIS, AND Y. SUH. 2004. Phy-
GAUT, B. S., S. V. MUSE, W. D. CLARK, AND M. T. CLEGG. 1992. Relative logenetic relationships among early-diverging eudicots based on four
rates of nucleotide substitution at the rbcL locus of monocotyledonous genes: were the eudicots ancestrally woody? Molecular Phylogenetics
plants. Journal of Molecular Evolution 35: 292–303. and Evolution 31: 16–30.
GIVNISH, T. J., AND K. J. SYTSMA. 1997. Consistency, characters, and the KONG, H.-Z., Z. CHEN, AND A.-M. LU. 2002. Phylogeny of Chloranthus
likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference. Molecular Phylogenetics (Chloranthaceae) based on nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid trnL-F se-
and Evolution 7: 320–333. quence data. American Journal of Botany 89: 940–946.
GIVNISH, T. J., J. C. PIRES, S. W. GRAHAM, M. A. MCPHERSON, L. M. PRINCE, KRAMER, E. M., R. L. DORIT, AND V. F. IRISH. 1998. Molecular evolution of
T. B. PATTERSON, H. S. RAI, E. H. ROALSON, T. M. EVANS, W. J. HAHN, genes controlling petal and stamen development: duplication and diver-
K. C. MILLAM, A. W. MEEROW, M. MOLVRAY, P. J. KORES, H. E. gence within the APETALA3 and PISTILLATA MADS-box gene line-
O’BRIEN, J. C. HALL, W. J. KRESS, AND K. J. SYTSMA. 2004. Phylo- ages. Genetics 149: 765–783.
genetic relationships of monocots based on the highly informative plastid KUZOFF, R. K., L. HUFFORD, AND D. E. SOLTIS. 2001. Structural homology
gene ndhF: evidence for widespread converted convergence. In J. T. Co- and developmental transformations associated with ovary diversification
lumbus, E. A. Friar, C. W. Hamilton, J. M. Porter, L. M. Prince, and M. in Lithophragma (Saxifragaceae). American Journal of Botany 88: 196–
G. Simpson [eds.], Monocots: comparative biology and evolution. Ran- 205.
cho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California, USA. LES, D. H., E. L. SCHNEIDER, D. J. PADGETT, M. ZANIS, D. E. SOLTIS, AND
GOREMYKIN, V., V. K. I. HIRSCH-ERNST, S. WÖLFL, AND F. H. HELLWIG. P. S. SOLTIS. 1999. Phylogeny, classification, and floral evolution of
2003. Analysis of the Amborella trichopoda chloroplast genome se- water lilies (Nymphaeales): a synthesis of non-molecular, rbcL, matK,
quence suggests that Amborella is not a basal angiosperm. Molecular and 18S rDNA data. Systematic Botany 24: 28–46.
Biology and Evolution 20: 1499–1505. LIPOK, B., A. A. GARDINE, P. S. WILLIAMSON, AND S. S. RENNER. 2000.
GOTTSBERGER, G. 1977. Some aspects of beetle pollination in the evolution Pollination by flies, bees, and beetles of Nuphar ozarkana and N. advena
of flowering plants. Plant Systematics and Evolution 1: 211–226. (Nymphaeaceae). American Journal of Botany 87: 898–902.
GOTTSBERGER, G. 1988. The reproductive biology of primitive angiosperms. LITT, A., AND V. IRISH. 2003. Duplication and diversification in the APE-
Taxon 37: 630–643. TALA1/FRUITFULL floral homeotic gene lineage: implications for the
GRAHAM, S. W., AND R. G. OLMSTEAD. 2000. Utility of 17 chloroplast genes evolution of floral development. Genetics 165: 821–833.
for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms. American Journal LOCONTE, H., AND D. W. STEVENSON. 1991. Cladistics of the Magnoliidae.
of Botany 87: 1712–1730. Cladistics 7: 267–296.
GRAHAM, S. W., P. A. REEVES, A. C. E. BURNS, AND R. G. OLMSTEAD. 2000. MABBERLEY, D. J. 1993. The plant book: a portable dictionary of the vascular
Microstructural changes in noncoding chloroplast DNA: interpretation, plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
evolution, and utility of indels and inversions in basal angiosperm phy- MAGALLÓN, S., P. R. CRANE, AND P. S. HERENDEEN. 1999. Phylogenetic
logenetic inference. International Journal of Plant Sciences 161(Supple- pattern, diversity, and diversification of eudicots. Annals of the Missouri
ment): S83–S96. Botanical Garden 86: 297–372.
HARMS, H. 1934. Hamamelidaceae. In A. Engler and K. Prantl [eds.], Die MAGALLÓN, S., AND M. J. SANDERSON. 2001. Absolute diversification rates
natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, vol. 2, 330–343. W. Engelmann, Leipzig, in angiosperm clades. Evolution 55: 1762–1780.
Germany. MATHEWS, S., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1999. The root of angiosperm phylog-
HECKMAN, D. S., D. M. GEISER, B. R. EIDELL, R. L. STAUFFER, N. L. KAR- eny inferred from duplicate phytochrome genes. Science 286: 947–949.
DOS, AND S. B. HEDGES. 2001. Molecular evidence for the early colo- MATHEWS, S., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 2000. Basal angiosperm phylogeny
nization of land by fungi and plants. Science 293: 1129–1133. inferred from duplicate phytochromes A and C. International Journal of
HEYWOOD, V. 1993. Flowering plants of the world. B.T. Batsford Ltd., Lon- Plant Sciences 161(Supplement): S41–S55.
don, UK. MEIMBERG, H., P. DITTRICH, G. BRINGMANN, J. SCHLAUER, AND G. HEUBL.
HICKEY, L. J., AND A. D. WOLFE. 1975. The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: 2000. Molecular phylogeny of Caryophyllidae s.l. based on matK se-
vegetative morphology. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 62: quences with special emphasis on carnivorous taxa. Plant Biology 2:
538–589. 218–228.
HILLIS, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383: 130. MORGAN, D. R., AND D. E. SOLTIS. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships among
Saxifragaceae sensu lato based on rbcL sequence data. Annals of the gruent nuclear and plastid gene phylogenies. American Journal of Botany
Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 631–660. 85: 997–1006.
NANDI, O. I., M. W. CHASE, AND P. K. ENDRESS. 1998. A combined cladistic RODRÍGUEZ-TRELLES, F., R. TARRÍO, AND F. J. AYALA. 2002. A methodolog-
analysis of angiosperms using rbcL and nonmolecular data sets. Annals ical bias toward overestimation of molecular evolutionary time scales.
of the Missouri Botanical Garden 85: 137–212. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 99: 8112–8115.
NICKERSON, J., AND G. DROUIN. 2004. The sequence of the largest subunit RONQUIST, F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weight-
of RNA polymerase II is a useful marker for inferring seed plant phy- ing. Systematic Biology 45: 247–253.
logeny. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 403–415. RONSE DE CRAENE, L. P., P. S. SOLTIS, AND D. E. SOLTIS. 2003. Evolution
NICKRENT, D. L., AND E. M. STARR. 1994. High rates of nucleotide substi- of floral structures in basal angiosperms. International Journal of Plant
tution in nuclear small-subunit (18S) rDNA from holoparasitic flowering Sciences 164(Supplement): S329–S363.
plants. Journal of Molecular Evolution 39: 62–70. SALAMIN, N., T. R. HODKINSON, AND V. SAVOLAINEN. 2002. Building su-
NICKRENT, D. L., R. J. DUFF, A. COLWELL, A. D. WOLFE, N. D. YOUNG, K. pertrees: an empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Sys-
E. STEINER, AND C. W. DE PAMPHILIS. 1998. Molecular phylogenetic tematic Biology 51: 136–150.
and evolutionary studies of parasitic plants. In D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, SANDERSON, M. J. 2002. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution
and J. J. Doyle [eds.], Molecular systematics of plants, vol. 2, 211–241. and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Molecular Biol-
Kluwer, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. ogy and Evolution 19: 101–109.
NICKRENT, D. L., A. BLARER, Y.-L. QIU, D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, AND M. SANDERSON, M. J., AND J. A. DOYLE. 2001. Sources of error and confidence
ZANIS. 2002. Molecular data place Hydnoraceae with Aristolochiaceae. intervals in estimating the age of angiosperms from rbcL and 18S rDNA
American Journal of Botany 89: 1809–1817. data. American Journal of Botany 88: 1499–1516.
OLMSTEAD, R. G., H. MICHAELS, K. SCOTT, AND J. PALMER. 1992. Mono- SANDERSON, M. J., A. PURVIS, AND C. HENZE. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees:
phyly of the Asteridae and identification of their major lineages inferred assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 105–
from DNA sequences of rbcL. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 109.
79: 249–265. SANDERSON, M. J., J. L. THORNE, N. WILKSTRÖM, AND K. BREMER. 2004.
OLMSTEAD, R. G., B. BREMER, K. M. SCOTT, AND J. D. PALMER. 1993. A Molecular evidence of plant divergence times. American Journal of Bot-
parsimony analysis of the Asteridae sensu lato based on rbcL sequences. any 91: 1656–1665.
Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 700–722. SAUQUET, H., J. A. DOYLE, T. SCHARASCHKIN, T. BORSCH, K. W. HILU, L.
OLMSTEAD, R. G., K.-J. KIM, R. K. JANSEN, AND S. J. WAGSTAFF. 2000. The W. CHATROU, AND A. LE THOMAS. 2003. Phylogenetic analysis of Mag-
phylogeny of the Asteridae sensu lato based on chloroplast ndhF gene noliales and Myristicaceae based on multiple data sets: implications for
sequence. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16: 96–112. character evolution. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 142: 125–
PARKINSON, C. L., K. L. ADAMS, AND J. D. PALMER. 1999. Multigene anal- 186.
yses identify the three earliest lineages of extant flowering plants. Cur- SAVOLAINEN, V., M. W. CHASE, C. M. MORTON, D. E. SOLTIS, C. BAYER,
rent Biology 9: 1485–1488. M. F. FAY, A. DE BRUIJN, S. SULLIVAN, AND Y.-L. QIU. 2000. Phylo-
PERKINS, J. 1925. Ubersicht uber die Gattungen der Monimiaceae. Engel- genetics of flowering plants based upon a combined analysis of plastid
mann, Leipzig, Germany. atpB and rbcL gene sequences. Systematic Biology 49: 306–362.
POLLOCK, D. D., D. J. ZWICKL, J. A. MCGUIRE, AND D. M. HILLIS. 2002. SAVOLAINEN, V., M. F. FAY, D. C. ALBACH, A. BACKLUND, M. VAN DER
Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. BANK, K. M. CAMERON, S. A. JOHNSON, M. D. LLEDÓ, J.-C. PINTAUD,
Systematic Biology 51: 664–671. M. POWELL, M. C. SHEAHAN, D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, P. WESTON,
POSLUSZNY, U., AND P. B. TOMLINSON. 2003. Aspects of inflorescence and W. M. WHITTON, K. J. WURDACK, AND M. W. CHASE. 2000b. Phylogeny
floral development in the putative basal angiosperm Amborella tricho- of the eudicots: a nearly complete familial analysis based on rbcL gene
poda (Amborellaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 81: 28–39. sequences. Kew Bulletin 55: 257–309.
PURVIS, A. 1995. A modification to Baum and Ragan’s method for combining SCHNEIDER, E. L. 1979. Pollination biology of the Nymphaeaceae. In D. M.
phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44: 251–255. Caron [ed.], Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Pol-
PYANKOV, V. I., E. G. ARTYUSHEVA, G. E. EDWARDS, C. C. J. BLACK, AND lination, 419–430. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Special
P. S. SOLTIS. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of tribe Salsoleae (Chenopo- Miscellaneous Publication 1. College Park, Maryland, USA.
diaceae) based on ribosomal ITS sequences: implications for the evolu- SOLTIS, D. E., V. A. ALBERT, V. SAVOLAINEN, K. W. HILU, Y.-L. QIU, M. W.
tion of photosynthesis types. American Journal of Botany 88: 1189– CHASE, J. S. FARRIS, S. STEFANOVIC, D. W. RICE, J. D. PALMER, AND
1198. P. S. SOLTIS. In press-a. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships,
QIU, Y.-L., J. LEE, F. BERNASCONI-QUADRONI, D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, M. and ‘‘ending incongruence’’: a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends
ZANIS, Z. CHEN, V. SAVOLAINEN, AND M. W. CHASE. 1999. The earliest in Plant Science.
angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes. SOLTIS, D. E., A. E. SENTERS, M. ZANIS, S. KIM, J. D. THOMPSON, P. S.
Nature 402: 404–407. SOLTIS, L. P. RONSE DE CRAENE, P. K. ENDRESS, AND J. S. FARRIS.
QIU, Y.-L., J.-Y. LEE, F. BERNASCONI-QUADRONI, D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, 2003. Gunnerales are sister to other core eudicots: implications for the
M. ZANIS, E. ZIMMER, Z. CHEN, V. SAVOLAINEN, AND M. CHASE. 2000. evolution of pentamery. American Journal of Botany 90: 461–470.
Phylogeny of basal angiosperms: analyses of five genes from three ge- SOLTIS, D. E., AND P. S. SOLTIS. 2004. Amborella NOT a ‘‘basal angio-
nomes. International Journal of Plant Sciences 161(Supplement): S3– sperm’’? Not so fast. American Journal of Botany.91: 997–1001.
S27. SOLTIS, D. E., P. S. SOLTIS, M. W. CHASE, AND P. K. ENDRESS. In press-b.
RAGAN, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation Angiosperm phylogeny, classification, and evolution. Smithsonian Insti-
of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1: 53–58. tution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
RAY, J. 1703. Methodus plantarum emendata et aucta. Smith and Walford, SOLTIS, D. E., P. S. SOLTIS, M. W. CHASE, M. E. MORT, D. C. ALBACH, M.
London, UK. ZANIS, V. SAVOLAINEN, W. J. HAHN, S. B. HOOT, M. F. FAY, M. AXTELL,
REICHENBACH, H. G. L. 1827–1829. Dr. Joh. Christ, Moessler’s Handbuch S. M. SWENSEN, L. M. PRINCE, W. J. KRESS, K. C. NIXON, AND J. S.
der Gewaechskunde, [ed.], vols. 2, 3. Hammerich, Altona, Germany. FARRIS. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S rDNA, rbcL,
RENNER, S. S. 1999. Circumscription and phylogeny of the Laurales: evi- and atpB sequences. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 133: 381–
dence from molecular and morphological data. American Journal of Bot- 461.
any 86: 1301–1315. SOLTIS, D. E., P. S. SOLTIS, D. R. MORGAN, S. M. SWENSEN, B. C. MULLIN,
RODMAN, J. E. 1991. A taxonomic analysis of glucosinolate-producing J. M. DOWD, AND P. G. MARTIN. 1995. Chloroplast gene sequence data
plants.II. Cladistics. Systematic Botany 16: 619–629. suggest a single origin of the predisposition for symbiotic nitrogen fix-
RODMAN, J. E., R. A. PRICE, K. KAROL, E. CONTI, K. J. SYTSMA, AND J. D. ation in angiosperms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
PALMER. 1993. Nucleotide sequences of the rbcL gene indicate mono- USA 92: 2647–2651.
phyly of mustard oil plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden SOLTIS, D. E., P. S. SOLTIS, M. E. MORT, M. W. CHASE, V. SAVOLAINEN, S.
80: 686–699. B. HOOT, AND C. M. MORTON. 1998. Inferring complex phylogeneis
RODMAN, J. E., P. S. SOLTIS, D. E. SOLTIS, K. J. SYTSMA, AND K. G. KAROL. using parsimony: an empirical approach using three large DNA data sets
1998. Parallel evolution of glucosinolate biosynthesis inferred from con- for angiosperms. Systematic Biology 47: 32–42.
SOLTIS, D. E., P. S. SOLTIS, D. L. NICKRENT, L. A. JOHNSON, W. J. HAHN, TAKHTAJAN, A. 1987. System of Magnoliophyta. Academy of Sciences, Len-
S. B. HOOT, J. A. SWEERE, R. K. KUZOFF, K. A. KRON, M. W. CHASE, ingrad, USSR.
S. M. SWENSEN, E. A. ZIMMER, S.-M. CHAW, L. J. GILLESPIE, W. J. TAKHTAJAN, A. 1997. Diversity and classification of flowering plants. Co-
KRESS, AND K. J. SYTSMA. 1997. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from lumbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.
18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden THORNE, R. F. 1974. A phylogenetic classification of the Annoniflorae. Aliso
84: 1–49. 8: 147–209.
SOLTIS, P. S., D. E. SOLTIS, AND M. W. CHASE. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny THORNE, R. F. 1992. Classification and geography of the flowering plants.
Botanical Review 58: 225–348.
inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature
TILLICH, H.-J. 1995. Seedling and systematics in monocotyledons. In P. J.
402: 402–404. Rudall, P. J. Cribb, D. F. Cutler, and C. J. Humphries [eds.], Monocot-
SOLTIS, P. S., D. E. SOLTIS, M. J. ZANIS, AND S. KIM. 2000. Basal lineages yledons: systematics and evolution, 303–352. Royal Botanic Gardens,
of angiosperms: relationships and implications for floral evolution. In- Kew, London, UK.
ternational Journal of Plant Science 161(Supplement): S97–S107. TOMLINSON, P. B. 1995. Non-homology of vascular organisation in mono-
SOLTIS, P. S., D. E. SOLTIS, V. SAVOLAINEN, P. R. CRANE, AND T. G. BAR- cotyledons and dicotyledons. In P. J. Rudall, P. J. Cribb, D. F. Cutler, and
RACLOUGH. 2002. Rate heterogeneity among lineages of tracheophytes: C. J. Humphries [eds.], Monocotyledons: systematics and evolution,
integration of molecular and fossil data and evidence for molecular living 589–622. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London, UK.
fossils. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences, USA 99: VAN TIEGHEM, P. 1897. Sur les Buxacées. Annales des Sciences Naturelles
4430–4435. Botanique, série 85: 289–338.
SOLTIS, P. S., D. E. SOLTIS, M. W. CHASE, P. K. ENDRESS, AND P. R. CRANE. WALKER, J. W., AND A. G. WALKER. 1984. Ultrastructure of Lower Creta-
2004. The diversification of flowering plants. In J. Cracraft and M. J. ceous angiosperm pollen and the origin and early evolution of flowering
Donoghue [eds.], Assembling the tree of life, 154–167. Oxford Univer- plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 71: 464–521.
sity Press, Oxford, UK. WARMING, E. 1879. Haandbog I den systematiske botanik. P. G. Philipsens
STEBBINS, G. L. 1974. Flowering plants: Evolution above the species level. Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.
WIKSTRÖM, N., V. SAVOLAINEN, AND M. W. CHASE. 2001. Evolution of the
Belknap Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
angiosperms: calibrating the family tree. Proceedings of the Royal So-
SUN, G., D. L. DILCHER, S. ZHENG, AND Z. ZHOU. 1998. In search of the ciety of London, B 268: 2211–2220.
first flower: a Jurassic angiosperm, Archaefructus, from northeast China. WILLIAMS, P. S., AND E. L. SCHNEIDER. 1993. Nelumbonaceae. In K. Ku-
Science 282: 1692–1695. bitzki, J. Rohwer, and V. Bittrich [eds.], The families and genera of vas-
SUN, G., Q. JI, D. L. DILCHER, S. ZHENG, K. C. NIXON, AND X. WANG. 2002. cular plants, 470–473. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Archaefructaceae, a new basal angiosperm family. Science 296: 899– WILSON, T. K. 1966. The comparative morphology of the Canellaceae. IV.
904. Floral morphology and conclusions. American Journal of Botany 53:
SWENSEN, S. M. 1996. The evolution of actinorhizal symbioses: evidence for 336–343.
multiple origins of the symbiotic association. American Journal of Bot- YOUNG, D. A. 1981. Are the angiosperms primitively vesselless? Systematic
any 83: 1503–1512. Biology 6: 313–330.
SYTSMA, K. J., AND D. A. BAUM. 1996. Molecular phylogenies and the di- ZANIS, M., D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, S. MATHEWS, AND M. J. DONOGHUE.
versification of angiosperms. In D. W. Taylor and L. J. Hickey [eds.], 2002. The root of the angiosperms revisited. Proceedings of the National
Flowering plant origin, evolution, and phylogeny, 314–340. Chapman Academy of Sciences, USA 99: 6848–6853.
ZANIS, M. J., P. S. SOLTIS, Y.-L. QIU, E. ZIMMER, AND D. E. SOLTIS. 2003.
and Hall, New York, New York, USA.
Phylogenetic analyses and perianth evolution in basal angiosperms. An-
SYTSMA, K. J., A. LITT, M. L. ZJHRA, J. C. PIRES, M. NEPOKROEFF, E. CONTI, nals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 90: 129–150.
AND P. WILSON. In press. Clades, clocks, and continents: historical and
ZHANG, L.-B., AND S. RENNER. 2003. The deepest splits in Chloranthaceae
biogeographical analysis of Myrtaceae, Vochysiaceae, and relatives in as resolved by chloroplast sequences. International Journal of Plant Sci-
the southern hemisphere. International Journal of Plant Science. ences 164(Supplement): S383–S392.
TAKHTAJAN, A. 1980. Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Mag- ZWICKL, D. J., AND D. M. HILLIS. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly
noliophyta). Botanical Review 46: 225–359. reduces phylogenetic error. Systematic Biology 51: 588–598.

P S. S D E. S: He Origin and Diversification of Angiosperms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P S. S D E. S: He Origin and Diversification of Angiosperms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P S. S D E. S: He Origin and Diversification of Angiosperms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Journal of Botany 91(10): 1614–1626. 2004.

THE ORIGIN AND DIVERSIFICATION OF ANGIOSPERMS1

PAMELA S. SOLTIS2,4 AND DOUGLAS E. SOLTIS3

of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA

Key words: Amborella; angiosperms; phylogeny.

MADS-box genes Apetala3 and Pistillata also supported the

Alternative views—Despite general support for the place-

unpublished data). Although increasing the number of char-

The fossil record—The fossil record does not clarify basal

Gunnerales. Gunnerales comprise two small families, Gun-

‘‘Berberidopsidales’’. Like Gunnerales, ‘‘Berberidopsida-

You might also like