This list of systems of plant taxonomy presents "taxonomic systems" used in plant classification.
A taxonomic system is a coherent whole of taxonomic judgments on circumscription and placement of the considered taxa. It is only a "system" if it is applied to a large group of such taxa (for example, all the flowering plants).
There are two main criteria for this list. A system must be taxonomic, that is deal with many plants, by their botanical names. Secondly it must be a system, i.e. deal with the relationships of plants. Although thinking about relationships of plants had started much earlier (see history of plant systematics), such systems really only came into being in the 19th century, as a result of an ever-increasing influx from all over the world of newly discovered plant species. The 18th century saw some early systems, which are perhaps precursors rather than full taxonomic systems.
A milestone event was the publication of Species Plantarum by Linnaeus which serves as the starting point of binomial nomenclature for plants. By its size this would qualify to be on this list, but it does not deal with relationships, beyond assigning plants into genera.
Note that a system is not necessarily monolithic and often goes through several stages of development, resulting in several versions of the same system. When a system is widely adopted, many authors will adopt their own particular version of the system. The Cronquist system is well known for existing in many versions.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:2 550 8252 036199 0272 7091 368 296
-
Taxonomy: Life's Filing System - Crash Course Biology #19
-
Plant Taxonomy
-
Plant Classification | Evolution | Biology | FuseSchool
-
What is Plant taxonomy? Explain Plant taxonomy, Define Plant taxonomy, Meaning of Plant taxonomy
-
Classification
Transcription
Taxonomy! It's the science of classifying living things. That sounds exciting. Today we'll basically be learning the Dewey Decimel System of evolution! It's like filing! You must be on the edge of your seat. OK, shut up. When it comes down to it, this science doesn't just categorize organisms, when you look a little deeper, you realize it's telling the story of all life on earth. And it's a pretty good story. Every living thing on this planet is related to every other living thing. If you go far enough back, we all have a common ancestor. An organism that both you and I are descended from. Or something that a star fish and a blue whale are descended from. Or, even weirder, that an oak tree and a salmon are both descended from. That organism lived. It lived very long ago. But it was here. And I dig that. The trick of taxonomy, is basically figuring out where all those branches of the evolutionary tree are, and finding some convenient labels to help us understand all of these remarkable interrelationships. Let's be clear though, taxonomy isn't about describing life in all of it's ridiculous detail, it's mostly about helping humans understand it, because it's way too complicated without structure. To get that structure biologists use the taxonomic system to classify all the organisms on the Earth. It's sometimes called the Phylogenetic Tree, or the Tree of Life, and it illustrates the evolutionary relationships between all living species. There are about 2 million known species, but there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species scientists really have no freaking idea. New species keep getting discovered all the time, and the more organisms we have to keep track of, the more complex the Phylogenetic Tree becomes. So, there's not always a consensus about how to classify this stuff. There's a lot of gray area in the Natural World. Actually, let me rephrase that: the Natural World is one giant Gray Area. Sometimes it's just hard to know where to put a certain group of organisms, and eventually the group gets so big, the classification system has to be messed with to make room for it. So, the system isn't perfect, but it's good enough that we've been using it for around 250 years. [Sniffing] What's that? Do you smell a Bio-lography coming on? Carl Linnaeus was a Swede born in 1707. And early in his career as a botanist he realized that the botanical nomenclature of 18th century Europe was.. well, just crap. For instance, in his day, the "formal" name of a tomato plant was Solanum caule inerme herbaceo, foliis pinnatis incisis, racemis simplicibus. Linnaeus actually said once, "I shudder at the sight of most botanical names given by modern authorities." Not only did this sloppiness bother him, he saw a whole sugarstorm blowing in: New plants were still being discovered in Europe, but that was nothing compared to the crazy stuff that was coming from the New World. Linnaeus saw that pretty soon, naming conventions were just going to collapse under all these new things to name. And THEN what? Linnaeus famously started off by naming himself. He came from a peasant family, and at the time, surnames were just for rich people, so when Carl went to college, they asked him for his surname and he just made one up: Linneaus, after the Linden trees that grew on his family's homestead. Linnaeus got a medical degree and became a professor at Uppsala University where he devoted himself to the study of nomenclature. He had his students go places and bring back specimens for him to study and categorize. The method he eventually adopted was based on morphology, or physical form and structure. This wasn't necessarily a new idea. Back then, people grouped organisms by analogous or homoplasic traits, structures that appear similar but actually come from completely independent origins. By this definition, birds would be more closely related to butterflies than to reptiles because birds and butterflies can both fly. But Linnaeus had a good mind for this stuff and turned out to have a real knack for choosing actual homologous traits for his classification system traits that stem from a common evolutionary ancestor. Linnaeus didn't know jack about evolution Darwin wouldn't come around for another 100 plus years but he just intuited that some traits were more important than others. For instance, he was struck by the fact that reproductive apparatus seemed to be a good way of classifying plants. He also caused a scandal by classifying the Class Mammalia based on the female's ability to produce milk from their nipples. Because apparently that was pretty racy stuff back then. In his lifetime Linnaeus catalogued roughly 7,700 plants and 4,400 animals, and he published his classifications in a catalog called Systema Naturae, which by the time he wrote the 12th edition, was 2,300 pages long. In the meantime, Linneaus actually adopted a personal motto: "God created, Linnaeus organized." Although taxonomy has come a long way since Linnaeus, we still use a bunch of the conventions that he invented. For instance, we still arrange things into taxa, or groups of organisms, and we still us the same Taxa as Linnaeus: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. We also still use Linnaeus' convention of binomial nomenclature using a unique, two-part name for every species the genus and species name, in Latin or Latin-ish. This practice actually started back in the Middle Ages when educated people were expected to know Latin. We know a lot less latin now, but we know a lot more about evolution which Linnaeus didn't. And we have technologies like genetic testing to classify relationships between organisms. And yet we still use Linnaeus's morphology-based system because genetic evidence generally agrees with classifications that are made based on structure and form. However, because there was a lot of life that Linnaeus had no idea about, we had to stick a new taxa above Linnaeus' Kingdom. We call it Domain. And it's as broad as you can get. The Domains are Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. The bacteria and archae are prokaryotes, meaning their genetic material goes commando with no nucleus to enclose it. While the Eukarya make up all the life forms with a nucleus and include pretty much all the life that you think of as life, and quite a lot of the life that you don't think about at all. It might seem like, since all macroscopic life only gets one domain, it's kinda silly to give prokaryotes two and for a long time, we didn't. We didn't divide them up into different domains. They hung out together in a single domain called Monera. But it later became clear that Bacteria, which live pretty much everywhere on earth, including inside of you and deep in the Earth's crust, and Archaea which are even more hardy than bacteria, have distinct evolutionary histories. Archaea being more closely related to eukaryotes and, yes, thus me and you. They have totally different cell membranes and the enzymes they use to make RNA, their RNA polymerase, is much more like ours. Under the domain Eukarya, which is by far the most interesting and even occasionally adorable domain, we have Kingdoms: Protista, Fungi, Plantae and Animalia. Now, scientists have settled on these four. For now. But these are categories that are a human creation, but there are good reasons for that human creation. The unscientific truth is that we looked at life and divided it up based on what we saw. So we were like, "Well, protists are single-celled organisms, so, they're very different from the rest of the domain. Plants get their energy from the sun and fungi look and act very different from plants and animals, and we already know what animals are, so they have to get their own kingdom." And though scientists are loathe to admit it, that system of just looking and dividing things up actually worked pretty well for us. Not perfectly, but pretty well. But there's a reason why this worked so well. Evolutionarily, there are actual categories. Each of these kingdoms is a huge branch in the tree of life. At each branch, an evolutionary change occurred that was so massively helpful that it spawned a vast diversity of descendents. Plants or Plantae are the autotrophs of the Domain Eukarya. Autotrophs meaning that they can feed themselves, through photosynthesis of course. Their cellulose-based cell walls and chloroplasts giving them a distinct difference from all other multi-cellular life. There are two other sorts of -trophs. The heterotrophs, which get their energy by eating other organisms. And Chemotrophs, which are weird and crazy and only show up in bacteria and achaea, and they get their energy from chemicals. Now the kingdom Protista is weird because it contains both autotrophs and heterotrophs. Some protists can photosynthesize, while others eat living things. Protists are basically a bunch of weird, eukaryotic single-celled organisms that may or may not be evolutionarily related to each other scientists are still trying to figure it out. Some are plant-like, like algae, some are more animal-like, like amoebas, and some are fungus-like, like slime molds. Protists are one of those gray areas I was telling you about. So don't be surprised if, by the time you're teaching this to your biology students, there are more than four kingdoms in Eukarya. Fungi, which are, you know—the funguses. They include mushrooms, smuts, puffballs, truffles, molds, and yeasts and they're pretty cool because they have cell walls like plants, but instead of being made of cellulose, they're made of another carbohydrate called chitin, which is also what the beak of a giant squid is made out of, or the exoskeleton of a beetle. Because fungi are heterotrophs like animals, they have these sort of digestive enzymes that break down their food and get reabsorbed. But they can't move, they don't require a stomach for digestion they just grow on top of whatever it is they're digesting and digest it right where it is. Which is super convenient! And finally, we have Kingdom Animalia. Which is the lovely kingdom that we find ourselves and 100% of adorable organisms in. Animals are multicellular, always. We're heterotrophic, so we spend a lot of our time hunting down food because we can't make it ourselves. Almost all of us can move, at least during some stage of our life cycle. And most of us develop either two or three germ layers during embryonic development, wait for it... ...unless you're a sponge. So like I said, we use this taxonomic system to describe the common ancestry and evolutionary history of an organism. Looking at the phylogenetic tree, you can tell that humans are more closely related to mice than we are to fish, and more closely related to fish than we are to fruit flies. So how about we pick an organism and follow it all the way through the taxa, from kingdom to species, just to see how it works. I know! Let's pick this kitty. Because I know she'd like it. Right, cat? So, kitties have cells that have nuclei and membrane surrounded organelles. And they're multicellular and heterotrophic and have three germ layers of cells when they're embryos, so they're in the kingdom Animalia. And they have a spinal cord running down their backs, protected by vertebrae, and disks in between them. And they have a tail that doesn't have a butthole at the end of it like a worm, which I'm really glad about. And that puts her in the phylum Chordata. Kitty clearly does not like this, so I'm going to put her down now. And the kitty lactates and gives birth to young like a cow, instead of laying eggs like a chicken, and they have fur and three special tiny bones in their ears that only mammals have, so they're in the class Mammalia. So, she is more closely related to a cow than a chicken. Good to know! And like a bunch of other placental mammals that eat meat like weasels (the mustelids), and dogs, (the canines), kitties are in the order Carnivora. And they're in the cat family, Felidae, whose members have lithe bodies and roundish heads and, except for cheetahs, retractable claws. And they're littler than tigers and panthers, which puts them in the genus Felis. And then, at the level of the species, the descriptions get pretty dang detailed, so let's just say that, you know what a cat is right? So the species name is catus. And look at that: Felis catus! Aw. Kitty. I could have that whole thing cross-stitched onto a pillow for you to sleep on! And it would be cute! Thank you for watching our taxider- I mean, our taxonomy episode of Crash Course Biology. We hope that you learned something. Thanks to everybody who helped put this episode together. If you have any questions for us, please leave them on Facebook or Twitter or in the comments below. And we will get to them. Hopefully very quickly. I will see you next time!
Chronological list of systems
Pre-Linnaean
- Theophrastus classification
- Historia Plantarum (Enquiry into Plants), c. 300 BC
- Causes of Plants, c. 300 BC
- Dioscorides classification
- De Materia Medica, c. 60 AD
- Albertus Magnus classification
- De Vegetabilibus, c. 1256 [1]
- Caesalpino classification
- De plantis libri XVI, 1583
- John Gerard classification
- Herball, or Generall Historie of Plantes, 1597
- Gaspard Bauhin classification
- Pinax theatri botanici, 1623
- John Ray classification
- Historia Plantarum, 1686–1704
- Tournefort classification
- Éléments de botanique, 1694
- Theophrastus classification
From Linnaeus to Darwin (pre-Darwinian)
- Linnaean systems
- Systema Naturae, 1st edition, 1735.
- Systema Naturae, 10th edition, 1758 (vol. 1), 1759 (vol. 2). Starting point of zoological nomenclature.
- Species Plantarum, 1753. Starting point of botanical nomenclature.
- Genera Plantarum, 1737 (1st ed.), 1753 (5th ed.).
- Philosophia Botanica, 1751.
- Adanson system
- Familles naturelles des plantes, 1763.
- de Jussieu system
- A.L. de Jussieu (1789). Genera Plantarum, secundum ordines naturales disposita juxta methodum in Horto Regio Parisiensi exaratam. apud viduam Herissant, typographum, viâ novâ B. M. sub signo Crucis aureæ.
- (available online at Gallica)
- de Candolle system
- A. P. de Candolle (1819). Théorie Élémentaire de la botanique, ou exposition des principes de la classification naturelle et de l'art de décrire et d'etudier les végétaux (2nd ed.).[1]
- A. P. de Candolle; et al. (1824–1873). Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis sive enumeratio contracta ordinum, generum specierumque plantarum huc usque cognitarum, juxta methodi naturalis normas digesta.
- (available online at Gallica)
- Berchtold and Presl system
- Dumortier system
- Dumortier, Barthélemy-Charles (1829). Analyse des familles des plantes :avec l'indication des principaux genres qui s'y rattachent (in French). Tournay: Casterman. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
- Lindley system
- Lindley (1830). An Introduction to the Natural System of Botany.
- (available online at BHL)
- Lindley (1845). The Vegetable Kingdom.
- (available online at BHL)
- Bentham & Hooker system
- G. Bentham & J.D. Hooker (1862–1883). Genera plantarum ad exemplaria imprimis in herbariis kewensibus servata definita. 3 volumes.
- (available online at Gallica)
- Baillon system
- H. Baillon (1867–1894). Histoire des plantes. 13 volumes.
Post Darwinian (Phyletic)
- Eichler system
- Eichler (1883). Syllabus der Vorlesungen über Phanerogamenkunde (3rd ed.).
- Van Tieghem system
- Van Tieghem, Philippe Édouard Léon; (1884; 2nd ed., 1891) (1891). Traité de botanique (in French). Paris: Savy. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- Van Tieghem, Philippe Édouard Léon; (1884; 2nd ed., 1891) (1891). Traité de botanique (in French). Paris: Savy. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
- Engler system
- A. Engler; K. Prantl & (1887–1915; 2nd edition, 1924–). Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. W. Engelmann.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - A. Engler (1892). Syllabus der Vorlesungen über specielle und medicinisch-pharmaceutische Botanik [or, in further editions, Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien].
- A. Engler; K. Prantl & (1887–1915; 2nd edition, 1924–). Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien. W. Engelmann.
- Dalla Torre & Harms system
- K.W. von Dalla Torre & H. Harms (1900–1907). Genera Siphonogamarum, ad systema Englerianum conscripta. Lipsiae, G. Engelmann.
- Bessey system
- Charles E. Bessey (1907). "A Synopsis of Plant Phyla". Univ. Nebraska Studies 7: 275–358.
- Charles E. Bessey (1915). "The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 2 (1/2): 109–164. doi:10.2307/2990030. JSTOR 2990030.
- Wettstein system
- R. Wettstein; (in two volumes, 1901-1908; 2nd edition, 1911; 3rd edition, 1923-24; 4th edition, 1933–35) (1911). "Handbuch der systematischen Botanik". Nature. 87 (2184): 308. Bibcode:1911Natur..87..308W. doi:10.1038/087308a0. hdl:2027/chi.095529285. S2CID 3965720.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- R. Wettstein; (in two volumes, 1901-1908; 2nd edition, 1911; 3rd edition, 1923-24; 4th edition, 1933–35) (1911). "Handbuch der systematischen Botanik". Nature. 87 (2184): 308. Bibcode:1911Natur..87..308W. doi:10.1038/087308a0. hdl:2027/chi.095529285. S2CID 3965720.
- Rendle system
- Alfred Barton Rendle. The Classification of Flowering Plants 1904, 1925
- Lotsy system
- Johannes Paulus Lotsy. Vorträge über botanische Stammesgeschichte, gehalten an der Reichsuniversität zu Leiden. Ein Lehrbuch der Pflanzensystematik. 1907–1911
- Hallier system
- Hallier, H (1912). "L'origine et le système phylétique des angiospermes exposés à l'aide de leur arbre généalogique". Archives Néerlandaises des Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, Série III. B. 1: 146–234.
- Warming system
- Warming, Eugenius (1912). Frøplanterne (Spermatofyter) (in Danish). Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag. Retrieved 28 December 2015.
- Hutchinson system
- J. Hutchinson; (two volumes, 1926–1934; 2nd edition 1959; 3rd edition, 1973). The families of flowering plants, arranged according to a new system based on their probable phylogeny.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- J. Hutchinson; (two volumes, 1926–1934; 2nd edition 1959; 3rd edition, 1973). The families of flowering plants, arranged according to a new system based on their probable phylogeny.
- Calestani system
- Calestani, Vittorio (1933). "Le origini e la classificazione delle Angiosperme". Archo. Bot. Sist. Fito-Geogr. Genet. 9: 274–311.
- Kimura system
- Kimura, Yojiro (1956). "Système et phylogénie des monocotyledones". Notulae Systematicae, Herbier du Muséum de Paris. 15: 137–159.
- Benson system
- Lyman David Benson. Plant Classification 1957
- Emberger system
- Chaudefaud, Marius; Emberger, Louis (1960). Traité de Botanique systématique 2 vols. Paris: Masson.
- Melchior system
- H. Melchior (1964). Adolf Engler (ed.). Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien (12th edition, II. Band ed.). Berlin-Nikolassee, Gebr. Borntraeger. (also known as modified Engler system, in Angiospermae)
- Takhtajan system
- A. Takhtajan; (in Russian, 1966). A system and phylogeny of the flowering plants.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - A. Takhtajan; (1969, transl. from Russian by C. Jeffrey) (1969). Flowering plants: origin and dispersal. Oliver & Boyd. ISBN 978-0-05-001715-9.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - A. Takhtajan (1980). "Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophya)". Botanical Review. 46 (3): 225–359. Bibcode:1980BotRv..46..225T. doi:10.1007/BF02861558. S2CID 30764910.
- A. Takhtajan (1997). Diversity and classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-10098-4.
- A. Takhtajan; (in Russian, 1966). A system and phylogeny of the flowering plants.
- Cronquist system
- A. Cronquist; (1968; 2nd edition 1988) (1988). The evolution and classification of flowering plants. New York Botanical Garden. ISBN 978-0-89327-332-3.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - A. Cronquist (1981). An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-03880-5.
- A. Cronquist; (1968; 2nd edition 1988) (1988). The evolution and classification of flowering plants. New York Botanical Garden. ISBN 978-0-89327-332-3.
- Thorne system
- R.F. Thorne (1968). "Synopsis of a putative phylogenetic classification of flowering plants". Aliso. 6 (4): 57–66. doi:10.5642/aliso.19680604.06.
- R.F. Thorne (1983). "Proposed new alignments in the angiosperms". Nord. J. Bot. 3: 85–117. doi:10.1111/j.1756-1051.1983.tb01447.x.
- R.F. Thorne (1992). "Classification and geography of flowering plants". Botanical Review. 58 (3): 225–348. Bibcode:1992BotRv..58..225T. doi:10.1007/BF02858611. S2CID 40348158.
- R.F. Thorne (1992). "An updated phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants". Aliso. 13 (2): 365–389. doi:10.5642/aliso.19921302.08. S2CID 85738663.
- R.F. Thorne (2000). "The classification and geography of the flowering plants: dicotyledons of the class Angiospermae". Botanical Review. 66 (4): 441–647. Bibcode:2000BotRv..66..441T. doi:10.1007/BF02869011. S2CID 43430454.
- Stebbins system
- Stebbins, G.L. (1974). Flowering plants: evolution above the species level. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, [2]. [System followed by Heywood, V.H. (ed., 1978). Flowering plants of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, [3].]
- Dahlgren system
- R.M.T. Dahlgren (1975). "A system of classification of angiosperms to be used to demonstrate the distribution of characters". Bot. Notiser. 128: 119–147.
- R.M.T. Dahlgren (1980). "A revised system of classification of angiosperms". Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 80 (2): 91–124. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.1980.tb01661.x.
- R.M.T. Dahlgren (1983). "General Aspects of Angiosperm Evolution and Macrosystematics". Nordic Journal of Botany. 3: 119–149. doi:10.1111/j.1756-1051.1983.tb01448.x.
- R.M.T. Dahlgren; et al. (1985). The families of the monocotyledons: structure, evolution, and taxonomy. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-13655-4.
- G. Dahlgren (1989). "An updated Angiosperm Classification". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 100 (3): 197–203. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.1989.tb01717.x.
- Goldberg system
- Aaron Goldberg (1986). "Classification, Evolution and Phylogeny of the Families of Dicotyledons". Smithsonian Contributions to Botany. 58 (58): 1–314. doi:10.5479/si.0081024x.58. (available online: Full text (PDF) here) [there is also a comparison among 11 Dicotyledons systems since 1960 until 1985]
- Aaron Goldberg (1989). "Classification, Evolution and Phylogeny of the Families of Monocotyledons". Smithsonian Contributions to Botany. 71 (71): 1–73. doi:10.5479/si.0081024x.71. (available online: Full text (PDF) here)
- Kubitzki system (1990- )
- K. Kubitzki; (1990 ongoing); et al. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- K. Kubitzki; (1990 ongoing); et al. The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants.
- Shipunov system (1991–)
- (Available online: Full text PDF )
- Reveal system (1997)
- Judd system (1999–2016)
- (Modified APG)
- Judd, Walter S. (2008). Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-407-2. Retrieved 29 January 2014.
- Judd, Walter S. (2016). Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach (4th ed.). Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-1-60535-389-0. Archived from the original on 25 December 2016. Retrieved 24 December 2016.
- APG system
- APG I (1998)
- APG (1998). "An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants". Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 85 (4): 531–553. doi:10.2307/2992015. JSTOR 2992015.
- W.S. Judd & al.; (1999; 2nd edition, 2002) (2002). Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach. W.H. Freeman. ISBN 978-0-87893-403-4.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- APG II (2003)
- APG (2003). "An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 141 (4): 399–436. doi:10.1046/j.1095-8339.2003.t01-1-00158.x.
- (Available online: Abstract | Full text (HTML) | Full text (PDF))
- APG III (2009)
- APG (2009). "An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 161 (2): 399–436. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x. hdl:10654/18083.
- (Available online: [4])
- Chase & Reveal System (2009)
- Chase, Mark W. & Reveal, James L. (2009), "A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III", Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161 (2): 122–127, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.01002.x
- (Available online at doi link.)
- APG IV (2016)
- APG I (1998)
Other systems
- Bartling system ([5])
- Deyl system
- Endlicher system ([6])
- Fritsch system (algae, [7])
- Gundersen system
- Hallier system
- Hoek, Mann and Jahns system (algae)
- Mez system
- Novák system ([8])
- Pascher system (algae, [9])
- Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group system
- Pulle system
- Rafinesque system ([10])
- Rouleau system
- Smith system (cryptogams – algae, fungi, bryophytes and pteridophytes)
- Skottsberg system
- Soó system
- Strasburguer system ([11])
- Tippo system
References
External links
- List of systems on a Russian server, by Alexey Shipunov
- Minelli, Alessandro (1993). Biological Systematics. The State of the Art. Chapman & Hall, London. 387 pp. Appendices 2–23, with major systematic works.
- Review of systems 1703–1845, in Lindley, John (1846): The Vegetable Kingdom
- Rao M. M., Reddy, S.M. (2007), Plant Taxonomy: Systems of Classification, in Reddy S. M. et al. (eds.) University Botany – 3, New Age International, pp. 7–32 ISBN 978-81-224-1547-6
Bibliography
- Dahlgren, Rolf; Clifford, H. T. (1982). The monocotyledons: A comparative study. London and New York: Academic Press. ISBN 9780122006807.
- Reddy, S.M. (2007), University botany: Angiosperms, plant embryology and plant physiology, New Age International, p. 7, ISBN 978-81-224-1547-6
- Stafleu, Frans A.; Cowan, Richard S. (1976–1988). Taxonomic literature: a selective guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, commentaries and types: Taxon. Lit., ed. 2 (TL2) (2nd ed.). Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema. ISBN 90-313-0224-4.