Rashmi M G

APG system of Plant

Classification
 Rashmi M G

A for Angiosperm

APG system of classification APG P for Phylogeny

G for Group
A collaborative effort by a group of botanists and
plant systematists
Published a classification of 462 families of Why was this system of classification
Angiosperms in 1998 developed?
 Traditional systems relied on the
1. This system of plant classification was modern morphological aspects for classification
classification system for Flowering plants which led to artificial grouping
(Angiosperms)  APG system was developed to reflect the
2. It was developed based on, evolutionary relationships based on
• Molecular and Morphological data, molecular and genetic data
focusing on Evolutionary relationships
Criteria considered for grouping,
(Phylogenetic Approach)
 Cladistic analysis of DNA sequences of
• Grouping of plants into Monophyletic
three genes, two chloroplast genes and
clades (shared common ancestors)
one gene coding for ribosomes
• No strict hierarchy (Ex. No subclasses,
 Molecular evidences
superorders) used
 Pollen morphology (supported the split
• The use of informal names (Ex. Core
between the Eudicots and the rest of the
eudicots) was included
former Dicotyledons)
 Rashmi M G
Members of first APG

Birgitta Bremer Kare Bremer Mark W Chase Michael F Fay

James L Reveal Peter F Stevens Douglas E Soltis Pamela S Soltis

 Rashmi M G

Roadmap of APG system

Modification of APG II by
1st Attempt of APG Revision of APG I system Soltis et al. in 2005 who made a
system of classification of classification and comprehensive treatment of
done in 1998 publishing of APG II the families of angiosperms
system of classification
by P F Stevens in 2003

Revision of APG II and

publication of APG III system in
the year 2009
Slight modification
and restructuring of 2nd Edition of APG
APG system of system of
classification by Judd classification in
et al. 2002
1999
Latest version of APG system
published in the year 2016
 Rashmi M G

APG I SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (1998)

 1st attempt to group and classify angiosperms on Molecular basis

 Published in the year 1998
 Grouping of plants by evolutionary relationships (clades)
 It focused on monophyletic groups (group of plants which are from single common
ancestor)
Outline of classification:

Angiosperms

Monocots Eudicots

Commelinoids Core eudicots

Rosids Asterids

Eurosids I Eurosids II Euasterids I Euasterids II

 Rashmi M G

APG I SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (1998)

Angiosperms
4 Orders
30 Families

Monocots Eudicots
6 Orders 2 Orders
68 Families 19 Families

Commelinoids Core eudicots

4 Orders 3 Orders
35 Families 50 Families

Rosids Asterids
1 Order 2 Orders
17 Families 30 Families

Eurosids I Eurosids II Euasterids I Euasterids II

6 Orders 4 Orders 4 Orders 4 Orders
72 Families 52 Families 40 Families 41 Families
 Rashmi M G

Key features:
 462 families were grouped into 40
putative Monophyletic orders under a Limitations of APG I system of classification:
small number of informal monophyletic ✗ Its focus on higher taxonomic levels like
higher groups: orders, led to many unplaced families
 Monocots ✗ An unresolved higher-level consensus tree
 Commelinoids ✗ Use of preliminary “bracketed” system for
 Eudicots some families which was confusing and
 Core Eudicots subsequently abandoned
 Rosids ✗ The 1998 paper was a starting point based on
 Eurosids I the genetic data available at that time and
 Eurosids II the genetic data was limited
 Asterids ✗ Certain groups, especially parasitic plants,
 Euasterids I were difficult to place accurately because
 Euasterids II their genetic material had diverged
 An additional list of 25 families of significantly
uncertain position for which no firm data ✗ 82 unplaced families of which 12 were placed
existed regarding placement anywhere towards the beginning and 25 towards the
within the system was made end and 45 unplaced in the informal ten
groups
✗ In addition, 18 families classified in four
orders, placed in the beginning did not have
any taxon at supraordinal rank
 Rashmi M G

Modifications of APG classification were presented by Judd et al. (1999)

 Recognized a total of 51 orders and shifting some families from informal groups where
they were directly placed in 1998 classification, to these orders
 The book listed only major families and as such nearly 200 families have been left out

A revision presented in the 2nd edition (2002) has further improvements in line with the
thinking of APG, and is largely similar to the APG II classification with minor differences

 The revision of APG (APG, 2003) and continuous upgradation on Angiosperm

Phylogeny website by P F Stevens have resulted in considerable refinement in the APG
scheme, with more and more families (and some orders) coming out of the list on
unplaced taxa
 The APG II classification recognized,
• 45 orders of Angiosperms, of which 44 are placed in 11 informal groups,
considered more or less monophyletic
• One order is unassigned at the beginning of Angiosperms
• A total of 457 families are recognized
 Rashmi M G
APG II SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (2003)
 2nd APG classification system
 Published in the year 2003
 Contributors: Birgitta Bremer, Kare Bremer, Mark W Chase, James L Reveal Douglas E
Soltis, Pamela S Soltis, Peter F Stevens
 Based on molecular evidences
 It was the revision of the first APG system (1998)
Outline of classification:

Angiosperms

Magnoliids Monocots Eudicots

Commelinids Core eudicots

Rosids Asterids

Eurosids I Eurosids II Euasterids I Euasterids II

 Rashmi M G

Angiosperms APG II SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (2003)

3 Orders
6 Families

Magnoliids Monocots Eudicots

4 Orders 6 Orders 2 Orders
20 families 59 Families 18 Families

Commelinids Core eudicots

4 Orders 4 Orders
33 Families 53 Families

Rosids Asterids
3 orders 2 orders
29 families 33 families

Eurosids I Eurosids II Euasterids I Euasterids II

7 Orders 3 Orders 3 Orders 4 Orders
77 Families 39 Families 38 Families 44 Families
 Rashmi M G

Key features:
 Recognized 45 orders,(5 more than the older
version of APG system)
 New orders were,
• Austrobaileyales
• Canellales Limitations of APG II:
• Gunnerales ✗ The bracketed families caused
• Celastrales confusions because it presented a
• Crossosomatales all of which were families choice between a single large family
unplaced as to order, although contained in or multiple smaller ones (Ex. The
supraordinal clades in the APG system broad Asparagaceae with 7
(1998) potential bracketed families)
 It recognized 457 families,(5 fewer than APG ✗ Some families were remained
(1998)) unplaced with certainty due to
 39 of APG families were not placed in any order, conflicting evidences, leading the
but 36 of the 39 were placed in a supra-ordinal number of unresolved families
Clade within the angiosperms within the system
 55 of the families came to known as “Bracketed ✗ The grouping was done based on
families” artificial characters with the result,
that closely allied families are placed
widely apart
✗ Some advanced families
(Orchidaceae and Scitamineae)
were treated at the beginning of
monocots
 Rashmi M G

Modification of APG II (After 2003)

 Steven updated APweb (version 7, June 2008)
 Reduced the number of unplaced families to 7
 Added 4 orders of gymnosperms in APweb
 Recognized 16 additional orders of angiosperms (total 61) of which 3 accommodate unplaced
families of APG II in the beginning of angiosperms, 1 in monocots, 2 in Commelinoids, 2 in
Eudicots, 3 in core Eudicots, 1 in Eurosids

Modification of APG II (2005) led to APG III

 Soltis et al. made a comprehensive treatment of the families of angiosperms
 The number of unplaced families reduced to 26 and 3 orders (Petrosaviales, Dasypogonales,
Berberidopsidales) were added to the APG scheme and one dropped (Ceratophyllales) thus
recognizing a total of 47 orders
 Rashmi M G
APG III SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (2009)
 3rd version of modern system of plant taxonomy
 Contributors: Mark W Chase, Michael F Fay, James L reveal, Douglas E Soltis, Pamela S Soltis, Peter F
Stevens
 Published in the year 2009
 This system was meant to fit the system into the existing Linnean hierarchy
 This system was based on a phylogenetic tree for the angiosperms which included all of the 59 orders
and 4 of the unplaced families
Outline of classification:

Angiosperms

Magnoliids Monocots Eudicots

Commelinids Core eudicots

Rosids Asterids

Fabids Malvids Lamiids Campanulids

(Eurosids I) (Eurosids II) (Euasterids I) (Euasterids II)
 Rashmi M G

Angiosperms APG III SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (2009)

4 orders ; 8 families

Magnoliids Monocots Eudicots

4 orders 7 orders 4 orders
20 families 48 families 14 families

Commelinids Core eudicots

4+1 orders 5 orders
60 families
31+1 families

Rosids Asterids
1 order 2 orders
1 family 28 families

Fabids Malvids Lamiids Campanulids

(Eurosids I) (Eurosids II) (Euasterids I)
8 orders 8 orders 4 orders
(Euasterids II)
7 orders
73 families 60 families 40 families
29 families
 Rashmi M G

Key features:
 This system recognized 413 families, 43 fewer
than the previous system, 44 of 55 “bracketed
families” were discontinued, 20 other families
were discontinued as well Limitations of APG III:
 21 families were accepted which had not been ✗ The phylogenetic relationships were
in the previous system, few families were unresolved
moved to a different position ✗ This system did not considered the
 The number of families not placed in any order comprehensive classification of all
was reduced from 39 to 10 lower taxonomic levels like genera or
 This system recognized all of the 45 orders of species as it only focused on orders
the previous system as well as 14 new ones and families
 The order Ceratophyllales was erroneously ✗ Several families and genera were not
marked as a new order given place within the APG III
 The newly recognized orders are- Amborellales, framework
Nymphaeales, Chloranthales, Petrosaviales, ✗ The use of informal grouping like
Trochodendrales, Buxales, Vitales, Eudicots and Magnoliids which are not
Zygophyllales, Picramniales, Huerteales, formal taxonomic ranks are quite
Berberidopsidales, Escalloniales, Bruniales and confusing and also do not follow the
Paracryphiales official rules of Botanical
 The “bracketed families” were abandoned nomenclature (ICBN)
✗ The “lumping” approach, i.e., merging
of families resulted in loss of details
for those who prefer a more split
classification
 Rashmi M G
APG IV SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (2016)
 4th version of a modern, molecular based system of plant taxonomy
 It was published in 2016
 It recognizes 5 new orders (Boraginales, Dilleniales, Icacinales, Mettenuisales and Vahliales) along with
some new families, making the total of 64 angiosperm orders and 416 families
Outline of classification:

Angiosperms

Basal Magnoliids Monocots Eudicots

Angiosperms
Core eudicots

Superosids Superasterids

Rosids Asterids

Fabids Malvids Lamiids Campanulids

(Eurosids I) (Eurosids II) (Euasterids I) (Euasterids II)
 Rashmi M G
Angiosperms APG IV SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION (2016)

Basal Magnoliids Monocots Eudicots

Angiosperms 4 orders 10 orders 4 orders
3 orders 18+ 1 families 77 families 13 families
7 families

Core eudicots
2 orders
3 families

Superosids Superasterids
1 order; 15 families 3 orders; 47 families

Rosids Asterids
1 order 2 orders
1 family 29 families

Fabids Malvids Lamiids Campanulids

(Eurosids I) (Eurosids II) (Euasterids I) (Euasterids II)
8 orders 8 orders 8 orders 7 orders
76 families 59 families 41 families 29 families
 Rashmi M G

Key features:
 This system recognized 64 orders, 416 families
 It divided the angiosperms into Early/ Basal
Angiosperms, Monocots, Eudicots (Core Limitations of APG IV:
angiosperms) ✗ This system of classification
 5 new orders were included has prioritized the higher
 Many families like, Asclepiadaceae merged to taxonomic levels and
Apocynaceae; Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae, provided less details for
Tiliaceae merged to Malvaceae; Chenopodiaceae lower ranks
included in Amaranthaceae ✗ Some families, groups were
 There were no “Bracketed families” included not placed in the APG
 The system is built with updated new data framework
ensuring it remains current with advances in ✗ The system relies heavily
molecular biology and phylogenetics on molecular data, which
 It included 2 additional informal major clades, can be a limitation when
Superosids and Superasterids which group molecular data is
additional orders within the broader Rosids and incomplete
Asterids clades ✗ For some of the group
 The system also incorporates the “Linear there are no sufficient fossil
approach” (LAPG) which presents the and other data available
classification in a linear order which can create challenge
to place them
 Rashmi M G

Important points:

APG I APG II APG III APG IV

Year of
1998 2003 2009 2016
publication

457 (among them

Families
462 55 are Bracketed 413 416
recognized
families )
Number of
unplaced 40 39 10 10
families

45+ 14 new
Total orders 40 45 64
orders
 Rashmi M G

References:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG_II_system
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG_III_system
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group#APG_IV_(2016)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group#Members_of_the_AP
G
6. https://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/apweb/
7. https://www.gbif.org/dataset/fa8ab13c-52ed-4754-b838-aeff74c79718
8. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/boj.12385
9. Gurcharan Singh (2010), Plant systematics- An Integrated Approach, Science
Publishers, 3rd Edition, Page no.269-358