Angiosperm Phylogeny Group

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, or APG, refers to an informal international group of systematic botanists who came together to try to establish a consensus on the taxonomy of flowering plants (angiosperms) that would reflect new knowledge about plant relationships discovered through phylogenetic studies.

As of 2016, four incremental versions of a classification system have resulted from this collaboration, published in 1998, 2003, 2009 and 2016. An important motivation for the group was what they considered deficiencies in prior angiosperm classifications since they were not based on monophyletic groups (i.e., groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor).

APG publications are increasingly influential, with a number of major herbaria changing the arrangement of their collections to match the latest APG system.

Angiosperm classification and the APG

In the past, classification systems were typically produced by an individual botanist or by a small group. The result was a large number of systems (see List of systems of plant taxonomy). Different systems and their updates were generally favoured in different countries. Examples are the Engler system in continental Europe, the Bentham & Hooker system in Britain (particularly influential because it was used by Kew), the Takhtajan system in the former Soviet Union and countries within its sphere of influence and the Cronquist system in the United States.[1]

Before the availability of genetic evidence, the classification of angiosperms (also known as flowering plants, Angiospermae, Anthophyta or Magnoliophyta) was based on their morphology (particularly of their flower) and biochemistry (the kinds of chemical compounds in the plant).

After the 1980s, detailed genetic evidence analysed by phylogenetic methods became available and while confirmed or clarified some relationships in existing classification systems, it radically changed others. This genetic evidence created a rapid increase in knowledge that led to many proposed changes; stability was "rudely shattered".[2] This posed problems for all users of classification systems (including encyclopaedists).

In the late 1990s, an informal group of researchers from major institutions worldwide came together under the title of the 'Angiosperm Phylogeny Group' or APG.[2] Their intention was to provide a widely accepted and more stable point of reference for angiosperm classification. Their first attempt at a new system was published in 1998 (the APG system). As of 2016, three revisions have been published, in 2003 (APG II), in 2009 (APG III) and in 2016 (APG IV), each superseding the previous system. Eight researchers have been listed as authors to the three papers, and a further 33 as contributors (see Members of the APG below).[3]

A classification presents a view at a particular point in time, based on a particular state of research. Independent researchers, including members of the APG, continue to publish their own views on areas of angiosperm taxonomy. Classifications change, however inconvenient this is to users. However, the APG publications are increasingly regarded as an authoritative point of reference and the following are some examples of the influence of the APG system:

Principles of the APG system

The principles of the APG's approach to classification were set out in the first paper of 1998, and have remained unchanged in subsequent revisions. Briefly, these are:[2]

APG I (1998)

See also: APG system

The initial 1998 paper by the APG made angiosperms the first large group of organisms to be systematically re-classified primarily on the basis of genetic characteristics.[2] The paper explains the authors' view that there is a need for a classification system for angiosperms at the level of families, orders and above, but that existing classifications are "outdated". The main reason why existing systems are rejected is because they are not phylogenetic, i.e. are not based on strictly monophyletic groups (i.e. groups which consist of all descendants of a common ancestor). An ordinal classification of flowering plant families is proposed as a "reference tool of broad utility". The broad approach adopted to defining the limits of orders resulted in the recognition of 40 orders, compared to, for example, 232 in Takhtajan's 1997 classification.[2][1]

Other features of the proposed classification included:

A major outcome of the classification is the disappearance of the traditional division of the flowering plants into two groups, monocots and dicots. The monocots are recognized as a clade, but the dicots are not, with a number of former dicots being placed in separate groups basal to both monocots and the remaining dicots, the eudicots or 'true dicots'.[2]

APG II (2003)

See also: APG II system

The second paper published by the APG presents an update to the original classification of 1998. The authors say that changes have been proposed only when there is "substantial new evidence" which supports them.[9]

The proposed classification continues the tradition of seeking broad circumscriptions of taxa, for example trying to place small families containing only one genus in a larger group. The authors say that they have generally accepted the views of specialists, although noting that specialists "nearly always favour splitting of groups" regarded as too varied in their morphology.[9]

APG II continues and indeed extends the use of alternative 'bracketed' taxa allowing the choice of either a large family or a number of smaller ones. For example, the large Asparagaceae family includes 7 'bracketed' families which can either be considered as part of the Asparagaceae or as separate families. Some of the main changes in APG II are:

In 2007, a paper was published giving a linear ordering of the families in APG II, suitable for ordering herbarium specimens, for example.[10]

APG III (2009)

See also: APG III system

The third paper from the APG updates the system described in the 2003 paper. The broad outline of the system remains unchanged, but the number of previously unplaced families and genera is significantly reduced. This requires the recognition of both new orders and new families compared to the previous classification. The number of orders goes up from 45 to 59; only 10 families are not placed in an order and only two of these (Apodanthaceae and Cynomoriaceae) are left entirely outside the classification. The authors say that they have tried to leave long-recognized families unchanged, while merging families with few genera. They "hope the classification [...] will not need much further change."[4]

A major change is that the paper discontinues the use of 'bracketed' families in favour of larger, more inclusive families. As a result, the APG III system contains only 415 families, rather than the 457 of APG II. For example, the agave family (Agavaceae) and the hyacinth family (Hyacinthaceae) are no longer regarded as distinct from the broader asparagus family (Asparagaceae). The authors say that alternative circumscriptions, as in APG I and II, are likely to cause confusion and that major herbaria which are re-arranging their collections in accordance with the APG approach have all agreed to use the more inclusive families.[4][11]

In the same volume of the journal, two related papers were published. One gives a linear ordering of the families in APG III; as with the linear ordering published for APG II, this is intended for ordering herbarium specimens, for example.[12] The other paper gives, for the first time, a classification of the families in APG III which uses formal taxonomic ranks; previously only informal clade names were used above the ordinal level.[8]

APG IV (2016)

A fourth version has now been published,[13] but the methodology has been the subject of criticism,[14] and developing a consensus has proved more difficult than in previous iterations.[3] In particular Peter Stevens has questioned the validity of discussions regarding family delimitation in the absence of changes of phylogenetic relationships.[15]

Updates

Peter Stevens, one of the authors of all three of the APG papers, maintains a web site, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (APWeb), hosted by the Missouri Botanical Garden, which has been regularly updated since 2001, and is a useful source for the latest research in angiosperm phylogeny which follows the APG approach.[16] Other sources include the Angiosperm Phylogeny Poster.[17]

Members of the APG

Listed as "author" of one or more of the papers

Name APG I APG II APG III Institutional affiliation
Birgitta Bremer c a a Swedish Academy of Sciences
Kåre Bremer a a a Uppsala University; Stockholm University
Mark W. Chase a a a Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Michael F. Fay c c a Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
James L. Reveal a a University of Maryland; Cornell University
Douglas E. Soltis c a a University of Florida
Pamela S. Soltis c a a Florida Museum of Natural History
Peter F. Stevens a a a Harvard University Herbaria; University of Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri Botanical Garden

a = listed as an author; c = listed as a contributor

Listed as "contributor" to one or more of the papers

Name APG I APG II APG III
Arne A. Anderberg c c c
Anders Backlund c
Barbara G. Briggs c
Peter K. Endress c
Peter Goldblatt c c
Mats H.G. Gustafson c
Sara B. Hoot c
Walter S. Judd c c
Mari Källersjö c c
Jesper Kårehed c
Elizabeth A. Kellogg c
Kathleen A. Kron c c
Donald H. Les c
Johannes Lundberg c
Michael J. Moore c
Cynthia M. Morton c
Daniel L. Nickrent c c
Richard G. Olmstead c c c
Bengt Oxelman c
J. Chris Pires c
Robert A. Price c
Christopher J. Quinn c
James E. Rodman c c
Paula J. Rudall c c c
Vincent Savolainen c c
Kenneth J. Sytsma c c c
David C. Tank c
Mats Thulin c
Michelle van der Bank c
Kenneth Wurdack c c
Jenny Q.-Y. Xiang c c
Sue Zmarzty c c

c = listed as a contributor


References

Bibliography

APG

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, April 20, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.