No job name

Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121. With 1 figure
An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group
classification for the orders and families of flowering
plants: APG IIIboj_996105.121
1Recommended citation: APG III (2009). This paper was compiled by Birgitta Bremer, Kåre Bremer,Mark W. Chase, Michael F. Fay, James L. Reveal, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Soltis and Peter F.
Stevens, who were equally responsible and listed here in alphabetical order only, with contributionsfrom Arne A. Anderberg, Michael J. Moore, Richard G. Olmstead, Paula J. Rudall, Kenneth J.
Sytsma, David C. Tank, Kenneth Wurdack, Jenny Q.-Y. Xiang and Sue Zmarzty (in alphabeticalorder). Addresses: B. Bremer, The Bergius Foundation at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, POBox 50017, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden; K. Bremer, Vice Chancellor, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden; M. W. Chase, M. F. Fay, Jodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3DS, UK; J. L. Reveal, L.H. Bailey Hortorium, Department of Plant Biology,412 Mann Building, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-4301, USA; D. E. Soltis, Department ofBiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611–8525, USA; P. S. Soltis, Florida Museum ofNatural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611–7800, USA; and P. F. Stevens,Department of Biology, University of Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299,St. Louis, Missouri 63166–0299, USA Received 12 August 2009; accepted for publication 18 August 2009 A revised and updated classification for the families of flowering plants is provided. Many recent studies haveyielded increasingly detailed evidence for the positions of formerly unplaced families, resulting in a number ofnewly adopted orders, including Amborellales, Berberidopsidales, Bruniales, Buxales, Chloranthales, Escalloniales,Huerteales, Nymphaeales, Paracryphiales, Petrosaviales, Picramniales, Trochodendrales, Vitales and Zygophylla-les. A number of previously unplaced genera and families are included here in orders, greatly reducing the numberof unplaced taxa; these include Hydatellaceae (Nymphaeales), Haptanthaceae (Buxales), Peridiscaceae(Saxifragales), Huaceae (Oxalidales), Centroplacaceae and Rafflesiaceae (both Malpighiales), Aphloiaceae, Geisso-lomataceae and Strasburgeriaceae (all Crossosomatales), Picramniaceae (Picramniales), Dipentodontaceaeand Gerrardinaceae (both Huerteales), Cytinaceae (Malvales), Balanophoraceae (Santalales), Mitrastemonaceae(Ericales) and Boraginaceae (now at least known to be a member of lamiid clade). Newly segregated familiesfor genera previously understood to be in other APG-recognized families include Petermanniaceae (Liliales),Calophyllaceae (Malpighiales), Capparaceae and Cleomaceae (both Brassicales), Schoepfiaceae (Santalales),Anacampserotaceae, Limeaceae, Lophiocarpaceae, Montiaceae and Talinaceae (all Caryophyllales) and Linder-niaceae and Thomandersiaceae (both Lamiales). Use of bracketed families is abandoned because of its unpopu-larity, and in most cases the broader circumscriptions are retained; these include Amaryllidaceae, Asparagaceaceand Xanthorrheaceae (all Asparagales), Passifloraceae (Malpighiales), Primulaceae (Ericales) and several othersmaller families. Separate papers in this same volume deal with a new linear order for APG, subfamilial namesthat can be used for more accurate communication in Amaryllidaceae s.l., Asparagaceace s.l. and Xanthorrheaceaes.l. (all Asparagales) and a formal supraordinal classification for the flowering plants.
of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121.
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: angiosperm classification – phylogenetic classification – DNA phylogenetics –classification system – APG system.
*Corresponding author: Mark W. Chase. E-mail: [email protected] 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
along APG lines. They have all agreed to adoptAPG III as their standard and the linear order of Since the previous APG classification (APG II, 2003), Haston et al. (2009). In general, the broader cir- a great deal more information about flowering plant cumscriptions have been favoured and are adopted relationships has emerged, and a more refined and better-resolved classification is now possible. If a well- 2. Papers over the last few years have clarified the supported hypothesis of monophyly is a necessary positions of isolated families including Cerato- prerequisite for a group to be named, it is not suffi- phyllaceae, Chloranthaceae and Picramniaceae cient. Not all clades need be named and, indeed, it (Jansen et al., 2007; Moore et al., 2007; Wang would barely be practicable to do this, so to decide et al., 2009), and this has necessitated addition of which clades should be named, additional criteria can orders not previously recognized by APG.
be invoked. Backlund & Bremer (1998) provided a 3. A few genera/families, members of which had useful discussion on the principles of rank-based phy- either not been sequenced before or for which logenetic classification that is applicable at all levels chimaeric sequences were produced, were wrongly apart from species and immediately above (see Albach placed. Thus, families like Guamatelaceae have et al., 2004; Entwisle & Weston, 2005; Pfeil & Crisp, been added; Guamatela used to be placed in 2005, etc., for examples). We follow these principles here. Backlund and Bremer’s main principle is that Crossosomatales (Oh & Potter, 2006). Hydatel- taxa that are recognized formally should be mono- laceae have been moved from Poales to Nymphae- phyletic. However, this does not indicate which par- ticular clades should be named as families, orders etc.
4. There are a few cases where the general pattern of It is helpful if (1) taxa formally recognized are relationships has not changed much since APG II, easily recognizable, (2) groups that are well estab- but our appreciation of the pattern of variation lished in the literature are preserved, (3) the size of has. For example, this helps justify inclusion of groups is taken into account (particularly small ones, which should be combined with others whenever pos- 5. Finally, a few family circumscriptions suggested by sible) and (4) nomenclatural changes are minimized APG II did not reflect general usage, so we have (Backlund & Bremer, 1998). Thus, on the one hand, modified these, an example being the broadly numerous small groups have little to recommend circumscribed Brassicaceae, which are here split them, as individually they summarize only a small amount of information and tend to clog the memory,whereas groups that are too large may have few In general, we have tried not to change the status obvious shared traits that can be used to recognize of families if they have long been recognized, unless them. Asparagales and Lamiales in particular have a there are other good reasons for combining them.
number of problems in this regard and include fami- However, we have taken the opportunity to combine lies that are still in a state of flux in this respect.
mono- or oligogeneric families. Most of the family- Changes are being made to the classification level changes mentioned below have resulted in the adopted by APG II for several reasons, but bearing families now recognized being relatively well charac- the Backlund and Bremer guidelines in mind.
terized. However, we realize that it is almost impos- 1. In the earlier versions of the Angiosperm Phylog- sible to achieve universal agreement for change – of eny Group classification, alternative circumscrip- any sort. Note that we do not see the APG classifica- tions were permitted for some families. However, tion as continuing to mutate for the indefinite future.
this seems unnecessary and more likely to cause Given the amount of phylogenetic work that has confusion than clarity. Here we indicate one of the taken place in the last five years, the changes pro- alternatives, a choice based in part on the circum- posed here are modest. We hope the classification scriptions adopted by textbooks (e.g. Judd et al., below will be found to be reasonable and, hence, will 2007), dictionaries (e.g. Mabberley, 2008) and the not need much further change, although we do note general literature. Note that, in preparation for those few areas where there is particular phylo- the third edition of The Plant Book, Mabberley genetic uncertainty that may necessitate further (2008: xi, 927, 929) consulted widely among tax- revision of familial or ordinal limits. For further dis- onomists about which alternative they preferred, cussion on the variation in the groups discussed, and, more recently, the issue of these alternative potential apomorphies, etc., see the literature cited circumscriptions was discussed by researchers and Stevens (2001); particularly important recent representing several European herbaria (e.g. K, E, work includes Wang et al. (2009: rosids), Tank & BM, P, G and the Dutch herbaria collectively) that Donoghue (in press), Moore et al. (2008, in press: core are in the process of reorganizing their collections eudicots), Wurdack & Davis (2009: Malpighiales) and 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Refulio-Rodriguez & Olmstead (2008, pers. comm.: Austrobaileyaceae Croizat (1943), nom. cons.
For those researchers who wish to employ a formal, $Schisandraceae Blume (1830), nom. cons. (includ- higher-level classification for the land plants, Chase & Reveal (2009) have proposed a system. It is based Trimeniaceae L.S.Gibbs (1917), nom. cons.
on the recognition that most previous systems Schisandraceae s.l. are well characterized.
have inflated the ranks of the angiosperms and the other major groups of land plants. In this system, Chloranthaceae R.Br. ex Sims (1820), nom. cons.
all embryophytes are a class, and, therefore, theangiosperms are recognized collectively as a single Chloranthaceae are probably sister to magnoliids subclass, Magnoliidae, which necessitated the use of (Moore et al., 2007). Separate ordinal status is superorders for the major angiosperm clades recog- warranted because of their phylogenetic position; they are also morphologically distinctive.
The general sequence of orders follows the left to right sequence of the largely ladderized tree inHaston et al. (2009). Within orders, the sequence of families is alphabetical. Symbols: *new family place- ment; †newly recognized order for the APG system; Canellaceae Mart. (1832), nom. cons.
§new family circumscription described in the text; Winteraceae R.Br. ex Lindl. (1830), nom. cons.
$families that represent the broader circumscriptionof options available in APG II and favoured here, $$families that were in square brackets in APG II, Aristolochiaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
the narrower circumscriptions favoured here. The list Hydnoraceae C.Agardh (1821), nom. cons.
reflects a starting date for all flowering plant family Lactoridaceae Engl. (1888), nom. cons.
names as 4 August 1789 (Jussieu, Genera plantarum).
Piperaceae Giseke (1792), nom. cons.
Full citations are available elsewhere (Reveal, 2008 – Saururaceae F.Voigt (1811), nom. cons.
onward). A summarized phylogenetic tree represent- The relationships of Hydnoraceae are unclear ing the relationships among the major groups recognized here is presented in Figure 1.
Laurales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Calycanthaceae Lindl. (1819), nom. cons.
Gomortegaceae Reiche (1896), nom. cons.
†Amborellales Melikyan, A.V.Bobrov & Zaytzeva Hernandiaceae Blume (1826), nom. cons.
Amborellaceae Pichon (1948), nom. cons.
Monimiaceae Juss. (1809), nom. cons.
The evidence that Amborellaceae are sister to all other angiosperms is clear (e.g. Hansen et al., 2007; Magnoliales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Jansen et al., 2007; Moore et al., 2007). However, even if they were sister to Nymphaeales (e.g. Goremykin, Degeneriaceae I.W.Bailey & A.C.Sm. (1942), nom.
Viola & Hellwig, 2009), they should be kept separate as their inclusion in Nymphaeales would result in a Eupomatiaceae Orb. (1845), nom. cons.
Himantandraceae Diels (1917), nom. cons.
†Nymphaeales Salisb. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Magnoliaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
$$Cabombaceae Rich. ex A.Rich. (1822), nom. cons.
Myristicaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
*Hydatellaceae U.Hamann (1976)$$Nymphaeaceae Salisb. (1805), nom. cons.
There seems to be a general preference for keeping Cabombaceae and Nymphaeaceae separate, although both are small in terms of species. The two familiesare easily characterizable. The inclusion of Hydatel- Alismatales R.Br. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) laceae (previously included in Poales) here was unex- §Alismataceae Vent. (1799), nom. cons. (including pected, but it is well supported morphologically and embryologically (Saarela et al., 2007; Friedman, 2008; Aponogetonaceae Planch. (1856), nom. cons.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
MagnolialesLauralesChloranthales†CommelinalesZingiberalesPoales DasypogonaceaeAsparagalesLilialesPandanalesDioscorealesPetrosaviales†AlismatalesAcoralesCeratophyllales†RanunculalesSabiaceaeProteales Buxales†Trochodendrales†GunneralesCucurbitalesFagalesRosalesFabalesCelastrales Picramniales†CrossosomatalesMyrtalesGeranialesVitales†SaxifragalesDilleniaceaeBerberidopsidales†SantalalesCaryophyllalesCornalesEricales SolanalesBoraginaceaeAquifolialesEscalloniales†AsteralesDipsacales Figure 1. Interrelationships of the APG III orders and some families supported by jackknife/bootstrap percentages
greater than 50 or Bayesian posterior probabilities greater than 0.95 in large-scale analyses of angiosperms. See text for
literature supporting these relationships. Newly-recognized-for-APG orders are denoted (†). Some eudicot families not yet
classified to order are not shown.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Cymodoceaceae Vines (1895), nom. cons.
Hydrocharitaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Juncaginaceae Rich. (1808), nom. cons.
Posidoniaceae Vines (1895), nom. cons.
Ruppiaceae Horan. (1834), nom. cons.
Melanthiaceae Batsch ex Borkh. (1797), nom. cons.
Scheuchzeriaceae F.Rudolphi (1830), nom. cons.
*Petermanniaceae Hutch. (1934), nom. cons.
Philesiaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Zosteraceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Ripogonaceae Conran & Clifford (1985)Smilacaceae Vent. (1799), nom. cons.
Alismataceae s.s. is lacking (e.g. Chen et al., 2004a, b) Petermanniaceae are morphologically and phylo- and the family does not have any apomorphies. When genetically distinct. Luzuriagaceae, consisting of two combined with Limnocharitaceae, a family that was small genera with generalized lily floral morphology, only relatively recently described (Cronquist, 1981), are sister to Alstroemeriaceae and have the same the enlarged family has several distinctive charac- distinctive twisted petioles, so combination is in order ters. It may be necessary to split off Maundia from Juncaginaceae (Iles et al., 2009; S. von Mering & J. W.
Kadereit, pers. comm.), and Maundiaceae Nakai is $Amaryllidaceae J.St.-Hil., nom. cons. (including available. However, it might be better in this case to Agapanthaceae F.Voigt, Alliaceae Borkh., nom.
create a larger single family for the larger clade. More study is needed before another monogeneric family is $Asparagaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (including Agavaceae Dumort., nom. cons., Aphyllanthaceae Burnett, Hesperocallidaceae Traub, Hyacintha- Petrosaviaceae Hutch. (1934), nom. cons.
ceae Batsch ex Borkh., Laxmanniaceae Bubani,Ruscaceae M.Roem., nom. cons., Themidaceae The isolated position of Petrosaviaceae here is well supported (e.g. Tamura et al., 2004; Chase et al., Blandfordiaceae R.Dahlgren & Clifford (1985)Boryaceae M.W.Chase, Rudall & Conran (1997) Doryanthaceae R.Dahlgren & Clifford (1985) Burmanniaceae Blume (1827), nom. cons.
Hypoxidaceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons.
Dioscoreaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
Ixioliriaceae Nakai (1943)Lanariaceae R.Dahlgren & A.E.van Wyk (1988) Thismiaceae J.Agardh (1858) may turn out to be in Orchidaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
a clade separate from Burmanniaceae and, similarly, Tecophilaeaceae Leyb. (1862), nom. cons.
the morphologically distinctive Taccaceae Dumort.
$Xanthorrhoeaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
(1829), nom. cons., from Dioscoreaceae. Phylogenetic (including Asphodelaceae Juss. and Hemerocalli- relationships in Dioscoreales that support such changes have been found by Merckx et al. (2006) Xeronemataceae M.W.Chase, Rudall & M.F.Fay and Merckx & Bidartondo (2008), and Merckx et al. (2009) even suggest that Thismiaceae s.s. may beparaphyletic. Given the problems in understanding An expanded Amaryllidaceae, including Agapan- relationships of mycoheterotrophic groups, we have thaceae and Alliaceae, are recognized here (Amaryl- been conservative and not adopted any altered cir- lidaceae was recently conserved over Alliaceae, despite Alliaceae being the older name). Several char-acters support the combined group. Agapanthaceae, if Pandanales R.Br. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) kept separate, are weakly characterized; the family is Cyclanthaceae Poit. ex A.Rich. (1824), nom. cons.
Pandanaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
The area around Asparagaceae is difficult from the Stemonaceae Caruel (1878), nom. cons.
standpoint of circumscription. Although Asparagaceae Triuridaceae Gardner (1843), nom. cons.
s.l. are heterogeneous and poorly characterized, Velloziaceae J.Agardh (1858), nom. cons.
Asparagaceae s.s., Agavaceae, Laxmanniaceae, Rus- 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
caceae and even Hyacinthaceae have few if any dis- Restionaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
tinctive features. Agavaceae and Ruscaceae sensu APG Thurniaceae Engl. (1907), nom. cons.
II (2003) are heterogeneous and have been divided into §Typhaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (including several families in the past, further confusing the issue. This solution at least keeps the number of Xyridaceae C.Agardh (1823), nom. cons.
difficult-to-recognize families to a minimum; Amaryl- Sparganiaceae are included in Typhaceae; the two lidaceae s.l. and Asparagaceae s.l. are easily differen- families are monogeneric, occupy similar habitats and tiated by umbels with a pair of enclosing bracts vs.
share a number of features. That they were treated racemes or rarely umbels, but if umbels are present separately in APG II was a mistake (M. W. Chase, they contain three or more bracts (e.g. Brodiaea, Milla pers. comm.). They have in the past been combined; and relatives, Themidaceae) and lack the enclosing Mabberley (2008) suggested that their combination pair of bracts. Xanthorrhoeaceae s.l. have been maintained for similar reasons to Asparagaceaes.l. Xanthorrhoeaceae s.s. are monogeneric, and Asphodelaceae are impossible to distinguish from genera such as Anthericum in Asparagaceae s.l. Asparagaceae and Xanthorrhoeaceae sensu APG III is Marantaceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons.
proposed in Chase, Reveal & Fay (2009). This will allow researchers to use a subfamily name where Strelitziaceae Hutch. (1934), nom. cons.
previously they would have used one of the APG II Zingiberaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
Ceratophyllaceae Gray (1822), nom. cons.
Relationships of Dasypogonaceae remain unclear.
The molecular evidence that Ceratophyllaceae are They are not particularly distinctive morphologically sister to eudicots is becoming clearer (Jansen et al., and so do not warrant immediate ordinal status, 2007; Moore et al., 2007, but cf. Goremykin et al., although Dasypogonales Doweld is available. They 2009). In this and all other relationships that have could probably be combined with one of the other been suggested for Ceratophyllaceae, including sister commelinid orders should they fall as sister groups.
to the monocots or Chloranthaceae (Endress & Doyle,2009), they are morphologically divergent from their Arecaceae Bercht. & J.Presl (1820), nom. cons.
Commelinales Mirb. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Commelinaceae Mirb. (1804), nom. cons.
Haemodoraceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
Ranunculales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Berberidaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Philydraceae Link (1821), nom. cons.
Pontederiaceae Kunth (1816), nom. cons.
Eupteleaceae K.Wilh. (1910), nom. cons.
Lardizabalaceae R.Br. (1821), nom. cons.
Anarthriaceae D.F.Cutler & Airy Shaw (1965) Menispermaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Bromeliaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
$Papaveraceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (including Centrolepidaceae Endl. (1836), nom. cons.
Fumariaceae Marquis, nom. cons., Pteridophyl- Ecdeiocoleaceae D.F.Cutler & Airy Shaw (1965) Ranunculaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Eriocaulaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
Flagellariaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
We adopt broad limits for Circaeasteraceae and Joinvilleaceae Toml. & A.C.Sm. (1970) Papaveraceae, as this is commonly done (Judd et al., 2007; Mabberley, 2008), and the two families are well characterized in their broader circumscriptions.
The two families into which Circaeasteraceae have Rapateaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
been divided (Circaeasteraceae and Kingdoniaceae) 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
are both monogeneric; they are herbaceous and This family has no stable position as yet (Moore their leaves have the same distinctive dichotomous et al., in press). The ordinal name, Dilleniales DC. ex Bercht. & J.Presl, is available.
Saxifragales Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Altingiaceae Horan. (1841), nom. cons.
Although Moore et al. (2008) placed Sabiaceae as Cercidiphyllaceae Engl. (1907), nom. cons.
However, if further work confirms this position, Crassulaceae J.St.-Hil. (1805), nom. cons.
Sabiaceae will be included in a broadened circum- Daphniphyllaceae Müll.-Arg. (1869), nom. cons.
scription of Proteales; the two have features in Grossulariaceae DC. (1805), nom. cons.
common. Sabiaceae remain poorly known.
$$Haloragaceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons.
Proteales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Hamamelidaceae R.Br. (1818), nom. cons.
Nelumbonaceae A.Rich. (1827), nom. cons.
$Iteaceae J.Agardh (1858), nom. cons. (including $$Platanaceae T.Lestib. (1826), nom. cons.
$$Proteaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Paeoniaceae Raf. (1815), nom. cons.
$$Penthoraceae Rydb. ex Britt. (1901), nom. cons.
Platanaceae, although monogeneric, are morpho- logically distinct from Proteaceae, and the two have (including Medusandraceae Brenan, nom. cons., never been combined previously; members of the broader family would have few features in common.
Saxifragaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
†Trochodendrales Takht. ex Cronquist (1981) The limits of Iteaceae are broadened because the combined clade is well characterized and Pteroste- monaceae are monogeneric. The limits of Halor- A separate order for this morphologically distinct agaceae are drawn narrowly as the inclusion of clade is warranted; the two monospecific genera in Penthoraceae and Tetracarpaeaceae would result in a family with no obvious characters and totally dendron, have much in common.
novel limits. The three families are individually tol-erably well characterized. Recent molecular analyses $Buxaceae Dumort. (1822), nom. cons. (including within Saxifragales, as sister to all other members of this clade (Soltis et al., 2007a; Jian et al., 2008), rather than in Malpighiales as previously proposed.
The limits of Buxaceae are expanded. The monoge- Peridiscaceae continue to be expanded (Davis & neric Didymelaceae have the same distinctive pollen Chase, 2004; Wurdack & Davis, 2009), but all and chemistry as at least part of Buxaceae, although members of the expanded family have similar dis- there is currently no evidence for the paraphyly of the latter. Some morphological features suggest that Cynomoriaceae are another family of holoparasitic Haptanthaceae are best placed here, but they are angiosperms that have been difficult to place. Some distinct from all other angiosperms (Doust & Stevens, molecular analyses had placed them in Santalales 2005). An order for the two families is warranted.
(Jian et al., 2008), although with little support.
Note that relationships of Trochodendrales and However, Barkman et al. (2007) found no support for Buxales remain unclear, although they are certainly a position in that order or anywhere else. Neverthe- to be placed in this part of the tree.
less, Nickrent (2002) and Nickrent et al. (2005)suggested that Cynomoriaceae should be placed inSaxifragales, but the evidence for placing them hereversus in Santalales is not strong. Confounding the placement of this taxon is evidence for horizontal gene transfer involving its host for some mitochon- $$Gunneraceae Meisn. (1842), nom. cons.
drial genes (Barkman et al., 2007). Zhang, Li & Li $$Myrothamnaceae Nied. (1891), nom. cons.
(2009) analyzed sequences from the plastid invertedrepeat and found that Cynomorium fell as sister The two families share no important features and to Rosaceae (Rosales) with high bootstrap support so are kept separate, although both are monogeneric.
(99%). Due to these discordant results, we do not Dilleniaceae Salisb. (1807), nom. cons.
assign Cynomoriaceae to an order here.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Balanopaceae Benth. & Hook.f. (1880), nom. cons.
Bonnetiaceae L.Beauvis. ex Nakai (1948) †Vitales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Caryocaraceae Voigt (1845), nom. cons.
Vitaceae remain isolated and ordinal status is appro- *Centroplacaceae Doweld & Reveal (2005) priate. They are sister to the fabids + malvids (rosid $$Chrysobalanaceae R.Br. (1818), nom. cons.
I + II) clade in most recent analyses, albeit without §Clusiaceae Lindl. (1836), nom. cons.
strong support (reviewed in Wang et al., 2009).
Ctenolophonaceae Exell & Mendonça (1951)$$Dichapetalaceae Baill. (1886), nom. cons.
Elatinaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
$$§Erythroxylaceae $$Krameriaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Euphorbiaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
$$Zygophyllaceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons.
Although Krameriaceae are monogeneric, they are Humiriaceae A.Juss. (1829), nom. cons.
Zygophyllaceae; the two are sister taxa. Combin- Hypericaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
ing the two would simply make a heterogeneous Irvingiaceae Exell & Mendonça (1951), nom. cons.
Zygophyllaceae still more so. An order is needed for Ixonanthaceae Planch. ex Miq. (1858), nom. cons.
this family pair as it is placed with strong support as Lacistemataceae Mart. (1826), nom. cons.
sister to a clade containing more than two fabid Linaceae DC. ex Perleb (1818), nom. cons.
orders in the analysis by Wang et al. (2009).
Lophopyxidaceae H.Pfeiff. (1951)Malpighiaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
$Ochnaceae DC. (1811), nom. cons. (including $Celastraceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons. (including Lepuropetalaceae Nakai, Parnassiaceae Marti- Pandaceae Engl. & Gilg (1912–1913), nom. cons.
Lepidobotryaceae J.Léonard (1950), nom. cons.
$Passifloraceae Juss. ex Roussel (1806), nom. cons.
The limits of Celastraceae are broadened because [including Malesherbiaceae D.Don, nom. cons., the three small families included show every sign Turneraceae Kunth ex DC. (1828), nom. cons.] of making Celastraceae paraphyletic if excluded Phyllanthaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
(Zhang & Simmons, 2006). The dismemberment of Picrodendraceae Small (1917), nom. cons.
Celastraceae needed to maintain the families, of Podostemaceae Rich. ex Kunth (1816), nom. cons.
which only Parnassiaceae are well known, would be extensive and yield poorly characterized families, and *Rafflesiaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Celastraceae s.l. are better characterized than Celas- $$Rhizophoraceae Pers. (1807), nom. cons.
traceae, excluding Parnassiaceae (for morphology, see $$Trigoniaceae A.Juss. (1849), nom. cons.
Violaceae Batsch (1802), nom. cons.
Brunelliaceae Engl. (1897), nom. cons.
The holoparasitic Rafflesiaceae are best assigned Cephalotaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
to Malpighiales, perhaps making Euphorbiaceae s.s. Connaraceae R.Br. (1818), nom. cons.
paraphyletic (e.g. Davis & Wurdack, 2004; Davis Cunoniaceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons.
et al., 2007); the recognition of Peraceae Klotzsch Elaeocarpaceae Juss. ex DC. (1816), nom. cons.
(1859) would be needed to maintain monophyly of Euphorbiaceae. However, pending further studies, Oxalidaceae R.Br. (1818), nom. cons.
Peraceae are not recognized here. Limits of clades inthe Bonnetiaceae–Podostemaceae area are becoming Huaceae are tentatively included in Oxalidales clearer (Wurdack & Davis, 2009), and this necessi- because a number of recent studies (e.g. Wurdack & tates the removal of Calophyllaceae from Clusiaceae.
Davis, 2009) have indicated that they are sister to The alternatives would be a family that included both Oxalidales as recognized in previous versions of APG.
of these families and Bonnetiaceae, Hypericaceae and This is not a well-characterized clade, and it remains Podostemaceae or one that included the last two families plus Calophyllaceae; in both cases Hyperi- Malpighiales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) caceae would be the correct name. The four families Achariaceae Harms (1897), nom. cons.
in the area of Chrysobalanaceae, Dichapetalaceae, 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Euphroniaceae and Trigoniaceae are kept separate similar, even although Rhoipteleaceae have superior as, although clearly related, a broadly drawn Chryso- and Juglandaceae inferior ovaries; ovary position is balanaceae would be heterogeneous (see Matthews & variable in many families, and in other such cases, Endress, 2008, for the morphology of this group).
e.g. Ebenaceae (including Lissocarpaceae), we have Bhesa (formerly of Celastraceae) and Centroplacus (formerly of Euphorbiaceae) form an isolated clade (Davis et al., 2005; Wurdack & Davis, 2009) that has Barbeyaceae Rendle (1916), nom. cons.
distinguishing features; recognition of a bigeneric Cannabaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
broadly drawn, i.e. including Samydaceae Vent. and Elaeagnaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Scyphostegiaceae Hutch. Although the combined Moraceae Gaudich. (1835), nom. cons.
clade is only moderately distinct morphologically and less so phylogenetically (Chase et al., 2002), recogni- tion of more families in this area is premature pending a more detailed sampling of the genera.
Trichostephanus Gilg, unplaced previously, shareswood anatomy, disc lobing and seed structure withSamydeae Vent. (= Salicaceae), and unpublished DNA data support this placement (M. Alford, pers. comm.).
Geraniales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) $Geraniaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (including sister taxon, Erythroxylaceae, although Aneulophus, of Erythroxylaceae, is to a certain extent morphologi- $Melianthaceae Horan. (1834), nom. cons. (includ- cally intermediate; the two families have hitherto not been combined. Passifloraceae and Ochnaceae are §Vivianiaceae Klotzsch, nom. cons. prop. (including broadly delimited here yet remain readily character- izable; relationships between the component cladeswithin the two families are uncertain, and both Geraniales are a heterogeneous and poorly known Medusagynaceae (Ochnaceae s.l.) and Malesherbi- order. The inclusion of the monogeneric Hypseochari- aceae (Passifloraceae s.l.) are monogeneric.
taceae in Geraniaceae, monogeneric Francoaceaein Melianthaceae and bigeneric Ledocarpaceae in Cucurbitales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Vivianiaceae leaves these expanded families with a Begoniaceae C.Agardh (1824), nom. cons.
Coriariaceae DC. (1824), nom. cons.
Myrtales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Corynocarpaceae Engl. (1897), nom. cons.
Cucurbitaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Combretaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
Datiscaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Crypteroniaceae A.DC. (1868), nom. cons.
Lythraceae J.St.-Hil. (1805), nom. cons.
$Melastomataceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (includ- §Myrtaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (including Polygalaceae Hoffmanns. & Link (1809), nom. cons.
Heteropyxidaceae Engl. & Gilg, nom. cons., §Penaeaceae Sweet ex Guill. (1828), nom. cons.
(including Oliniaceae Arn., nom. cons., Rhyn- Casuarinaceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons.
chocalycaceae L.A.S.Johnson & B.G.Briggs) Vochysiaceae A.St.-Hil. (1820), nom. cons.
§Juglandaceae DC. ex Perleb (1818), nom. cons.
In Melastomataceae, and still more in Myrtaceae, [including Rhoipteleaceae Hand.-Mazz. (1932), common usage is for broadened family circumscrip- tions. Both Heteropyxidaceae and Psiloxylaceae are Myricaceae A.Rich. ex Kunth (1817), nom. cons.
small families and when included in Myrtaceae s.l. that family remains characterized by possession of Ticodendraceae Gómez-Laur. & L.D.Gómez (1991) pellucid glands containing ethereal oils.
Juglandaceae are expanded to include their sister clade, the monogeneric Rhoipteleaceae. The two look Penaeaceae, Oliniaceae, Alzataeaceae and Rhyn- 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
chocalycaceae is clear; Van Beusekom-Osinga & van Beusekom (1975) included the last two families in the $Akaniaceae Stapf (1912), nom. cons. (including Bretschneideraceae Engl. & Gilg, nom. cons.) although they show variation in floral morphology Bataceae Mart. ex Perleb (1838), nom. cons.
and embryo sac, in particular. Some combination is in §Brassicaceae Burnett (1835), nom. cons.
order, and Penaeaceae have been expanded to include *Capparaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Rhynchocalycaceae and Oliniaceae; Penaeaceae s.l. Caricaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Gyrostemonaceae A.Juss. (1845), nom. cons.
Crossosomataceae Engl. (1897), nom. cons.
Koeberliniaceae Engl. (1895), nom. cons.
Limnanthaceae R.Br. (1833), nom. cons.
*Guamatelaceae S.Oh & D.Potter (2006) Moringaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
Stachyuraceae J.Agardh (1858), nom. cons.
Pentadiplandraceae Hutch. & Dalziel (1928) Staphyleaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
Resedaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
Salvadoraceae Lindl. (1836), nom. cons.
(including Ixerbaceae Griseb. ex Doweld & Reveal) Setchellanthaceae Iltis (1999)Tovariaceae Pax (1891), nom. cons.
The addition of several families to Crossosomatales Tropaeolaceae Juss. ex DC. (1824), nom. cons.
is well justified (e.g. Sosa & Chase, 2003; Soltis et al.,2007b; Wang et al., 2009), although monogeneric Inclusion of monogeneric Bretschneideraceae into Guamatelaceae are a somewhat surprising addition, the monogeneric Akaniaceae is justified by the morphological similarities of the two, which are Rosaceae (Oh & Potter, 2006). For the most part, sister taxa. Although a broad circumscription of relationships among families included in Crossoso- Brassicaceae was recognized in APG (1998) and APG matales have not been suggested before. The order is II (2003), the consensus prefers the recognition of heterogeneous, although the families are all small.
three families, all of which can be characterized, Nevertheless, Matthews & Endress (2005b, 2006) albeit Capparaceae only rather poorly so. The final found a number of floral features to be at least phylogenetic positions, and hence taxonomic disposi- common in the order. The sister taxa Strasburgeri- tion, of some genera, particularly those previously aceae and Ixerbaceae are two monogeneric families included in Capparaceae–Stixeae, remain uncertain that agree in several characters, including base chro- (Hall, Sytsma & Iltis, 2002; Hall, Iltis & Sytsma, mosome number and stamen and gynoecial morphol- 2004). Nonetheless, the name Stixaceae Doweld ogy etc.; combination is in order. As the order is now (2008) is available if it is required.
defined, Staphyleales Mart. (1835) is an older name Malvales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) for Crossosomatales Takht. ex Reveal (1993). It need $Bixaceae Kunth (1822), nom. cons. (including Cochlospermaceae Planch., nom. cons., Diegoden- *Picramniaceae Fernando & Quinn (1995) Cistaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
*Cytinaceae A.Rich. (1824) Picramniaceae were previously unplaced rosids, but Dipterocarpaceae Blume (1825), nom. cons.
there is now strong support for a position in the rosid II/malvid clade (Wang et al., 2009).
Muntingiaceae C.Bayer, M.W.Chase & M.F.Fay *Dipentodontaceae Merr. (1941), nom. cons.
Neuradaceae Kostel. (1835), nom. cons.
Sarcolaenaceae Caruel (1881), nom. cons.
Sphaerosepalaceae Tiegh. ex Bullock (1959)Thymelaeaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
This assemblage of three small families is well supported, and recognition of Huerteales is appro- A broad circumscription for Bixaceae is adopted; the priate given their position. Within Huerteales, the three families included are all small, and the combined recently described Gerrardinaceae (Gerrardina was family can be characterized morphologically. The para- previously placed in Flacourtiaceae) are sister to the sitic Cytinaceae (including Bdallophyton Eichl.) find rest, and Dipentodontaceae, although monogeneric their resting place here (Nickrent, 2007). The novel like Gerrardinaceae, are distinctive (see Worberg dismemberment of Malvaceae by Cheek (2006), see also Cheek in Heywood et al., 2007) is not followed 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
here; the families are difficult to distinguish, and two are not proposed here. Santalaceae are kept with are new (Brownlowiaceae, Durionaceae, although the their previous circumscription. That they can be first is a later name for Sparmanniaceae J.Agardh as divided into clades (Der & Nickrent, 2008), one of defined by Cheek). The close relationship of the four which is the morphologically distinct Viscaceae, is of families that make up Malvaceae s.l. here has been itself insufficient reason for their dismemberment recognized since at least the time of Robert Brown.
(see Introduction, also Dipsacales below). Balanopho- Details of relationships in the area of Cistaceae– raceae are to be included in Santalales (Nickrent, Der & Anderson, 2005; Barkman et al., 2007), and there is and these families may need to be combined (Kubitzki some evidence that Cynomoriaceae might also belong & Chase, 2002; Ducousso et al., 2004); Cistaceae has here (see comments under Saxifragales, above).
priority if these are all combined as a single family.
Caryophyllales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Sapindales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Achatocarpaceae Heimerl (1934), nom. cons.
Anacardiaceae R.Br. (1818), nom. cons.
Aizoaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
Amaranthaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Burseraceae Kunth (1824), nom. cons.
*Anacampserotaceae Eggli & Nyffeler (2010, in Ancistrocladaceae Planch. ex Walp. (1851), nom.
$Nitrariaceae Lindl. (1835), nom. cons. (including Peganaceae Tiegh. ex Takht., Tetradiclidaceae Asteropeiaceae Takht. ex Reveal & Hoogland (1990) Sapindaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Simaroubaceae DC. (1811), nom. cons.
Caryophyllaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
§Didiereaceae Radlk. (1896), nom. cons.
We circumscribe Nitrariaceae broadly. The four Dioncophyllaceae Airy Shaw (1952), nom. cons.
Droseraceae Salisb. (1808), nom. cons.
although their basic morphology, anatomy and chem- Drosophyllaceae Chrtek, Slavíková & Studnicˇka Frankeniaceae Desv. (1817), nom. cons.
Aextoxicaceae Engl. & Gilg (1920), nom. cons.
Halophytaceae A.Soriano (1984)*Limeaceae Shipunov ex Reveal (2005) The morphologically distinct Aextoxicaceae and *Lophiocarpaceae Doweld & Reveal (2008) Berberidopsidaceae are strongly supported as sister §Molluginaceae Bartl. (1825), nom. cons.
taxa, and recent work (Moore et al., in press) placed them with strong support as sister to (Santalales Nepenthaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
(Caryophyllales + asterids)); thus, ordinal status is Nyctaginaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Santalales R.Br. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Phytolaccaceae R.Br. (1818), nom. cons.
*Balanophoraceae Rich. (1822), nom. cons.
Plumbaginaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Loranthaceae Juss. (1808), nom. cons.
Polygonaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Misodendraceae J.Agardh (1858), nom. cons.
§Portulacaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Santalaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
Opiliaceae Valeton (1886), nom. cons.
Stegnospermataceae Nakai (1942)*Talinaceae Doweld (2001) The genera included in Schoepfiaceae used to be Tamaricaceae Link (1821), nom. cons.
included in Olacaceae s.l., but they are exclusivelyrelated. They are well supported as being in a clade The recognition of a number of new but small with Misodendraceae, but that family is morphologi- families is necessitated by recent phylogenetic work on cally so distinct that combination of the two families core Caryophyllales. Anacampserotaceae, Portula- is inappropriate. The paraphyletic Olacaceae are caceae s.s., Montiaceae and Talinaceae are all clades being resolved into a number of clades (Malécot & near Cactaceae that are for the most part well Nickrent, 2008), but relationships between these supported as distinct (e.g. Applequist & Wallace, 2001; clades are uncertain and so new families/family limits Nyffeler, 2007; Nyffeler & Eggli, in press; Brockington 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
et al., in press). Expansion of Cactaceae to include all Roridulaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
or some of these small clades cannot, however, be justified. Not only have the limits of Cactaceae been Sarraceniaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
stable over the years, but inclusion of Anacampseros and relatives (Anacampserotaceae) and Portulacaceae Styracaceae DC. & Spreng. (1821), nom. cons.
s.s. in Cactaceae (compatible with the best phyloge- Symplocaceae Desf. (1820), nom. cons.
netic hypotheses) would yield a clade characterized solely by multicellular axillary hairs. Similarly, inclu- sion of these two groups and Talinaceae in Cactaceae Theaceae Mirb. ex Ker Gawl. (1816), nom. cons.
would yield a clade characterized by parallelocytic It was clear in APG II that Theaceae s.l. could not stomata (probably) and fruit characters, but the latter be maintained. Subsequent work on the potential have been subsequently lost in Cactaceae (Ogburn & segregates has clarified the morphological pattern of Edwards, 2009). Anacampserotaceae has only recently variation (Stevens, 2001, for a summary). Sladeni- been described (Nyffeler & Eggli, in press), recognition aceae are recognized as distinct from Pentaphyla- is compatible with their phylogenetic position.
caceae; although the two are sister taxa, they share It has long been recognized that the limits few obvious characters, and little would be gained by of Molluginaceae s.l. are unclear (e.g. Endress & uniting them. However, Ternstroemiaceae have much Bittrich, 1993). Limeaceae and Lophiocarpaceae are in common with Pentaphylacaceae and so the former are included in the latter. Theaceae s.s. are not imme- findings (Cuénoud et al., 2002). Molluginaceae s.l. are yet another group much in need of basic anatomical, The monogeneric Pellicieraceae are included in developmental and phytochemical study. We still Tetrameristaceae; the resulting family, with three know little about relationships of Phytolaccaceae, genera, is moderately well characterized. Mitrastemo- almost certainly not a monophyletic family as cur- naceae is a morphologically distinctive holoparasitic rently circumscribed. However, its division, as in family that is well embedded in Ericales.
Judd et al. (2007), is premature.
The biggest problem for APG III was the question of how to treat Primulaceae and their immediate relatives, a closely related group that in the past has often been recognized as a separate order. Although Cornaceae Bercht. & J.Presl (1825), nom. cons.
Primulaceae and relatives are clearly in Ericales, taxon limits in this group have been problematic.
Maesaceae are a monogeneric family necessitated by Grubbiaceae Endl. ex Meisn., (1841), nom. cons.
the break-up of Myrsinaceae, as are a monogeneric Hydrangeaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Samolaceae Raf. by the break-up of Primulaceae (or Hydrostachyaceae Engl. (1894), nom. cons.
Theophrastaceae would have to be extended, so becoming less recognizable; see Källersjö, Bergqvist &Anderberg, 2000; Ståhl & Anderberg, 2004, for infor- mation). The limits of Myrsinaceae were extended, Actinidiaceae Engl. & Gilg. (1824), nom. cons.
and those of Primulaceae correspondingly restricted.
Balsaminaceae A.Rich. (1824), nom. cons.
Given that the limits of the two best-known families Clethraceae Klotzsch (1851), nom. cons.
in the group, Myrsinaceae and Primulaceae, have Cyrillaceae Lindl. (1846), nom. cons.
been substantially changed, apomorphies are hard to Diapensiaceae Lindl. (1836), nom. cons.
recognize (less so for Maesaceae and Primulaceae s.s.), and the group as a whole has numerous syna- pomorphies and is easy to recognize so we extend the Fouquieriaceae DC. (1828), nom. cons.
limits of Primulaceae (see also Mabberley, 2008), Lecythidaceae A.Rich. (1825), nom. cons.
although we know that this move will not be univer- Marcgraviaceae Bercht. & J.Presl (1820), nom. cons.
*Mitrastemonaceae Makino (1911), nom. cons.
$Pentaphylacaceae Engl. (1897), nom. cons. (includ- Polemoniaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
§Primulaceae Batsch ex Borkh. (1797), nom. cons.
§*Boraginaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (including Källersjö, Myrsinaceae R.Br., nom. cons., Theo- Icacinaceae Miers (1851), nom. cons.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Metteniusaceae H.Karst. ex Schnizl. (1860–1870) Orobanchaceae Vent. (1799), nom. cons.
Oncothecaceae Kobuski ex Airy Shaw (1965) Paulowniaceae Nakai (1949)Pedaliaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
The limits of Boraginaceae are drawn broadly.
Phrymaceae Schauer (1847), nom. cons.
Not only are the phylogenetic relationships within §Plantaginaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
the family still unclear, but as we know more about relationships within its component clades, they become less easy to distinguish (e.g. Gottschling et al., Scrophulariaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
2005 for Cordioideae A.Gray). Molecular data suggest that Hoplestigmataceae are to be included in Boragi- naceae s.l., being placed in or near Cordioideae (K.
Wurdack, pers. comm.; V. Savolainen and M. Powell, Verbenaceae J.St.-Hil. (1805), nom. cons.
pers. comm.); Hoplestigma Pierre is similar in inflo-rescence, ovary, pollen, etc. to Boraginaceae. Relation- Note that relationships among many families in ships of Boraginaceae s.l. and Vahliaceae remain Lamiales, and to a certain extent also their limits, unclear, in the former case despite the sequencing of are still unclear. Some of us would prefer a vastly the whole plastid genome (Moore et al., in press).
expanded circumscription of Scrophulariaceae, far Three families, Icacinaceae, Metteniusaceae and beyond what it has ever included, whereas others Oncothecaceae, are to be placed in this general area are not so inclined. The limits of Plantaginaceae of the tree. Furthermore, genera that used to be have been further restricted since APG II by the included in Icacinaceae s.l. are also to be found here, recognition of the family of small herbs with rather although they do not group with Icacinaceae s.s. distinctive stem anatomy and floral morphology (e.g. Linderniaceae), and Thomandersia has been Cassinopsis Sond. and Emmotum Ham. (= Emmota- removed from Acanthaceae as the monogeneric ceae Tiegh.). All these taxa show similarities to Gar- ryales, and circumscription of that order could easily be expanded to include them if phylogenetic relation- Solanales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) ships warranted it. Revised family limits depend on Convolvulaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Montiniaceae Nakai (1943), nom. cons.
Eucommiaceae Engl. (1907), nom. cons.
$Garryaceae Lindl. (1834), nom. cons. (including Sphenocleaceae T.Baskerv. (1839), nom. cons.
Although Aucubaceae and Garryaceae (both mono- generic) appear distinct, there are several apomor- Gentianales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) Aquifoliaceae Bercht. & J.Presl (1820), nom. cons.
Apocynaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Gelsemiaceae Struwe & V.A.Albert (1995) Gentianaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Loganiaceae R.Br. ex Mart. (1827), nom. cons.
Leptaulus Benth., previously unplaced, is assigned to Cardiopteridaceae (Kårehed, 2001).
§Acanthaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Bignoniaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons.
Byblidaceae Domin (1922), nom. cons.
Asteraceae Bercht. & J.Presl (1820), nom. cons.
Gesneriaceae Rich. & Juss. (1816), nom. cons.
Calyceraceae R.Br. ex Rich. (1820), nom. cons.
Lamiaceae Martinov (1820), nom. cons.
$Campanulaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. (includ- *Linderniaceae Borsch, K.Müll., & Eb.Fisch. (2005) Lentibulariaceae Rich. (1808), nom. cons.
Goodeniaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons.
Martyniaceae Horan. (1847), nom. cons.
Menyanthaceae Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
Oleaceae Hoffmanns. & Link (1809), nom. cons.
Pentaphragmataceae J.Agardh (1858), nom. cons.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Dipsacales Juss. ex Bercht. & J.Presl (1820) $Stylidiaceae R.Br. (1810), nom. cons. (including §Caprifoliaceae Juss. (1789), nom. cons. [including cons., Linnaeaceae Backlund, Morinaceae Raf., Expansion of Stylidiaceae to include the mono- generic Donatiaceae is supported by morphologyand geography, and the expanded Campanulaceae have strong support in molecular studies and are adopted here as it is widely preferred (Judd et al., 2007; Mabberley, 2008). The expanded family is well within Campanulaceae s.l. are still unclear (Tank & characterized, but half the clades it includes are Donoghue, in press), and a future attempt to recog- poorly characterized morphologically.
nize Lobeliaceae might either result in a clade poorly supported morphologically or entail the recognition of Griseliniaceae J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. ex A.Cunn.
§Escalloniaceae R.Br. ex Dumort. (1829), nom. cons.
(including Eremosynaceae Dandy, Polyosmaceae Pennantiaceae J.Agardh (1858)Pittosporaceae R.Br. (1814), nom. cons.
This is a heterogeneous group of genera that forms §Torricelliaceae Hu (1934) (including Aralidiaceae a well-supported clade, but one of uncertain position Philipson & B.C.Stone, Melanophyllaceae Takht.
and within which relationships are poorly supported (Tank & Donoghue, in press). It is likely to be sisterto Asterales or, more probably, to all campanulids Expansion of Torricelliaceae to include Aralidiaceae apart from Asterales and Aquifoliales. Even if sister and Melanophyllaceae is reasonable. All three are to Asterales, inclusion in that order would make the monogeneric and poorly known. Nevertheless, they latter distinctly more heterogeneous; separate ordinal form a strongly supported clade (e.g. Lundberg, 2001; Plunkett, 2001; Kårehed, 2002, 2003), and that theywere kept separate before was a simple oversight.
The recognition of Myodocarpaceae results from our Bruniaceae R.Br. ex DC. (1825), nom. cons.
improved understanding of relationships of members §Columelliaceae D.Don (1828), nom. cons. (includ- An order is needed for the two families above.
Winkworth, Lundberg & Donoghue (2008) found some support for a position sister to Asterales and Tank & Cynomoriaceae Endl. ex Lindl. (1833), nom. cons.
Donoghue (in press) found stronger support for a position sister to the Paracryphiales–Dipsacales– Petenaea Lundell (possibly Malvales) Columelliaceae are broadly circumscribed because Desfontainiaceae have much in common with them;both families are Andean and monogeneric.
†Paracryphiales Takht. ex Reveal (1992) Albach DC, Martínez-Ortega MM, Fischer MA, Chase
§Paracryphiaceae Airy Shaw (1965) (including MW. 2004. A new classification of the tribe Veroniceae –
problems and a possible solution. Taxon 53: 429–452.
APG. 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flow-
ering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 85:
Although these three families are at first sight strikingly different, they have several characters in APG II. 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group
common and form a strongly supported clade (Tank & classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: Donoghue, in press); all are monogeneric and from APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 141:
the southwestern Pacific. Combination is in order (see also Myrtales, Crossosomatales). Tank & Donoghue Applequist WL, Wallace RS. 2001. Phylogeny of the portu-
(in press) found 100% bootstrap support for a position lacaceous cohort based on ndhF sequence data. Systematic of Paracryphiales as sister to Dipsacales.
Botany 26: 406–419.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Backlund A, Bremer K. 1998. To be or not to be – principles
Davis CC, Webb CO, Wurdack KJ, Jaramillo CA,
of classification and monotypic plant families. Taxon 47:
Donoghue MJ. 2005. Explosive radiation of Malpighiales
supports a Mid-Cretaceous origin of modern tropical rain Barkman TJ, McNeal JR, Lim S-H, Coat G, Croom HB,
forests. American Naturalist 165: E36–E65.
Young ND, dePamphilis CW. 2007. Mitochondrial DNA
Davis CC, Latvis M, Nickrent DL, Wurdack KJ, Baum
suggests at least 11 origins of parasitism in angiosperms DA. 2007. Floral gigantism in Rafflesiaceae. Science 315:
and reveals genomic chimerism in parasitic plants. BMC Evolutionary Biology 7: 248.
Der J, Nickrent D. 2008. A molecular phylogeny of Santal-
Brockington SF, Alexandre R, Ramdial J, Moore MJ,
aceae (Santalales). Systematic Botany 33: 107–116.
Crawley S, Dhingra A, Hilu K, Soltis PS Soltis DE.
Doust AN, Stevens PF. 2005. A reinterpretation of the
2009. Phylogeny of the Caryophyllales and the evolution of
staminate flowers of Haptanthus. Systematic Botany 30:
the perianth. International Journal of Plant Sciences 170:
Ducousso M, Béna G, Bourgeois C, Buyck B, Eyssartier
Chase MW, Fay MF, Devey DS, Maurin O, Rønsted N,
G, Vincelette M, Rabévohitra R, Randrihasipara L,
Davies J, Pillon Y, Petersen G, Seberg O, Tamura MN,
Dreyfus B, Prin Y. 2004. The last common ancestor of
Asmussen CB, Hilu K, Borsch T, Davis JI, Stevenson
Sarcolaenaceae and Asian dipterocarp trees was ectomycor- DW, Pires JC, Givnish TJ, Sytsma KJ, Graham SW,
rhizal before the India–Madagascar separation, about 88 McPherson MA, Rai HS. 2006. Multi-gene analyses of
million years ago. Molecular Ecology 13: 231–236.
monocot relationships: a summary. In: Columbus JT, Friar Endress ME, Bittrich V. 1993. Molluginaceae. In: Kubitzki
EA, Hamilton CW, Porter JM, Prince LM, Simpson MG, K, Rohwer JG, Bittrich V, eds. The families and genera of eds. Monocots: comparative biology and evolution (vol. 1, vascular plants. II. Flowering plants: dicotyledons, magno- excluding Poales). Claremont, CA: Rancho Santa Ana liid, hamamelid and caryophyllid families. Berlin: Springer, Chase MW, Reveal JL. 2009. A phylogenetic classification of
Endress PK, Doyle JA. 2009. Reconstructing the ancestral
the land plants to accompany APG III. Botanical Journal of angiosperm flower and its initial specializations. American the Linnean Society 161: 122–127.
Journal of Botany 96: 22–66.
Chase MW, Reveal JL, Fay MF. 2009. A subfamilial clas-
Entwisle TJ, Weston PH. 2005. Majority rules, when sys-
sification for the expanded asparagalean families, Amaryl- tematists disagree. Australian Journal of Systematic Botany lidaceae, Asparagaceae and Xanthorrhoeaceae. Botanical 18: 1–6.
Journal of the Linnean Society 161: 132–136.
Friedman WE. 2008. Hydatellaceae are water lilies with
Chase MW, Zmarzty S, Lledó MD, Wurdack KJ, Swensen
gymnospermous tendencies. Nature 453: 94–97.
SM, Fay MF. 2002. When in doubt, put it in Flacourti-
Goremykin VV, Viola R, Hellwig FH. 2009. Removal of
aceae: a molecular phylogenetic analysis based on plastid noisy characters from chloroplast genome-scale data sug- rbcL DNA sequences. Kew Bulletin 57: 141–181.
gests revision of phylogenetic placement of Amborella and Cheek M. 2006. The validation of two new family names in
Ceratophyllum. Journal of Molecular Evolution 68: 197–204.
Malvales: Durionaceae and Brownlowiaceae. Kew Bulletin Gottschling M, Miller JS, Weigend M, Hilger HH. 2005.
Congruence of a phylogeny of Cordiaceae (Boraginales) Chen J-M, Chen D, Robert GW, Wang Q-F, Guo Y-H.
inferred from ITS1 sequence data with morphology, ecology, 2004a. Evolution of apocarpy in Alismatidae using phylo-
and biogeography. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden genetic evidence from chloroplast rbcL sequence data.
92: 425–437.
Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica 45: 33–40.
Hall JC, Sytsma KJ, Iltis HH. 2002. Phylogeny of Cappa-
Chen J-M, Robert GW, Wang Q-F. 2004b. Evolution of
raceae and Brassicaceae based on chloroplast sequence aquatic life forms in Alismatidae: phylogenetic estimation data. American Journal of Botany 89: 1826–1842.
from chloroplast rbcL sequence data. Israel Journal of Plant Hall JC, Iltis HH, Sytsma KJ. 2004. Molecular phylo-
Sciences 52: 323–329.
genetics of core Brassicales, placement of orphan genera Cronquist A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of
Emblingia, Forchammeria, Tirania, and character evolu- flowering plants. New York: Columbia University Press.
tion. Systematic Botany 29: 654–669.
Cuénoud P, Savolainen V, Chatrou LW, Powell M,
Hansen DR, Dastidar SG, Cau Z, Penaflor C, Kuehl JV,
Grayer RJ, Chase MW. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of
Boore JL, Jansen RK. 2007. Phylogenetic and evolution-
Caryophyllales based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid ary implications of complete chloroplast genome sequences rbcL, atpB, and matK DNA sequences. American Journal of of four early-diverging angiosperms: Buxus (Buxaceae), Botany 89: 132–144.
Chloranthus (Chloranthaceae), Dioscorea (Dioscoreaceae), Davis CC, Chase MW. 2004. Elatinaceae are sister to
and Illicium (Schisandraceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Malpighiaceae; Peridiscaceae belong to Saxifragales. Ameri- Evolution 45: 547–563.
can Journal of Botany 91: 262–273.
Haston E, Richardson JE, Stevens PF, Chase MW,
Davis CC, Wurdack KJ. 2004. Host-to-parasite gene
Harris DJ. 2009. LAPG III: a linear sequence of the fami-
transfer in flowering plants: phylogenetic evidence from lies in APG III. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society Malpighiales. Science 305: 676–678.
161: 128–131.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
Heywood VH, Brummitt RK, Culham A, Seberg O. 2007.
systematics in four orders of rosids, including a broad Flowering plant families of the World. Kew: Royal Botanic survey of floral mucilage cells. Plant Systematics and Evolution 260: 199–221.
Iles W, Smith SY, Graham SW. 2009. Robust resolution of
Matthews ML, Endress PK. 2008. Comparative floral struc-
the backbone of Alismatales phylogeny. In Botany and ture and systematics in Chrysobalanaceae s.l. (Chrysobal- [http://2009.botanyconference.org/engine/search/ anaceae, Dichapetalaceae, Euphroniaceae, Trigoniaceae; Malpighiales). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society Jansen RK, Cai Z, Raubeson LA, Daniell H, dePamphilis
157: 249–309.
CW, Leebens-Mack J, Müller KF, Guisinger-Bellian M,
Merckx V, Bidartondo MI. 2008. Breakdown and delayed
Haberle RC, Hansen AK, Chumley TW, Lee S-B, Peery
cospeciation in the arbuscular mycorrhizal mutualism. Pro- R, McNeal JR, Kuehl JV, Boore JL. 2007. Analysis of 81
ceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 275: 1029–1035.
genes from 64 chloroplast genomes resolves relationships in Merckx V, Schols V, Maas-van de Kamer H, Maas P,
Huysmans S, Smets E. 2006. Phylogeny and evolution of
patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Burmanniaceae (Dioscoreales) based on nuclear and mito- of the United States of America 104: 19369–19374.
chondrial data. American Journal of Botany 93: 1684–1698.
Jian S, Soltis PS, Gitzendanner MA, Moore MJ, Li R,
Merckx V, Bakker FT, Huysmans S, Smets E. 2009. Bias
Hendry TA, Qiu Y-L, Dhingra A, Bell C, Soltis DE.
and conflict in phylogenetic inference of myco-heterotrophic 2008. Resolving an ancient, rapid radiation in Saxifragales.
plants: a case study in Thismiaceae. Cladistics 25: 64–77.
Systematic Biology 57: 38–57.
Moore MJ, Bell CD, Soltis PS, Soltis DE. 2007. Using
Judd WS, Campbell CS, Kellogg EA, Stevens PF, Dono-
plastid genome-scale data to resolve enigmatic relationships ghue MJ. 2007. Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach,
among basal angiosperms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:
Källersjö M, Bergqvist G, Anderberg AA. 2000. Generic
realignment in primuloid families of the Ericales s.l.: a Moore MJ, Bell CD, Soltis PS, Soltis DE. 2008. Analysis
phylogenetic analysis based on DNA sequences from three of an 83-gene, 86-taxon plastid genome data set resolves chloroplast genes and morphology. American Journal of relationships among several deep-level eudicot lineages.
Botany 87: 1325–1341.
In: Botany 2008. [Botanical Society of America, http:// Kårehed J. 2001. Multiple origin of the tropical forest tree
2008.botanyconference.org / engine / search / index.php ? func= family Icacinaceae. American Journal of Botany 88: 2259–
Moore MJ, Soltis PS, Bell CD, Burleigh JG, Soltis DE.
Kårehed J. 2002. Evolutionary studies in asterids emphasis-
2009. Phylogenetic analysis of 83 plastid genes resolves
ing euasterids II. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
relationships among major clades of eudicot angiosperms Kårehed J. 2003. The family Pennantiaceae and its relation-
and reveals multiple rapid radiations. Proceedings of the ship to Apiales. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 141: 1–24.
Kubitzki K, Chase MW. 2002. Introduction to Malvales. In:
Nickrent DL. 2002. Orígenes filogenéticos de las plantas
Kubitzki K, ed. The families and genera of vascular plants. parásitas. In: López-Sáez JA, Catalán P, Sáez L, eds.
V. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Malvales, Capparales Plantas parásitas de la península Ibérica e islas Baleares.
and non-betalain Caryophyllales. Berlin: Springer, 12–16.
Lundberg J. 2001. Phylogenetic studies in the euasterids II
Nickrent DL. 2007. Cytinaceae are sister to Muntingiaceae
with particular reference to Asterales and Escalloniaceae.
(Malvales). Taxon 56: 1129–1135.
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Nickrent DL, Der JP, Anderson FE. 2005. Discovery of the
Mabberley DJ. 2008. Mabberley’s plant book: a portable
photosynthetic relatives of the ‘Maltese mushroom’ Cynomo- dictionary of plants, their classifications, and uses, 3rd edn.
rium. BMC Evolutionary Biology 5: 38. Available at http://
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malécot V, Nickrent DL. 2008. Molecular phylogenetic rela-
Nyffeler R. 2007. The closest relatives of cacti: insights from
tionships of Olacaceae and related Santalales. Systematic phylogenetic analyses of chloroplast and mitochondrial Botany 33: 97–106.
sequences with special emphasis on relationships in the Matthews ML, Endress PK. 2005a. Comparative floral
tribe Anacampseroteae. American Journal of Botany 94:
structure and systematics in Celastrales (Celastraceae, Parnassiaceae, Lepidobotryaceae). Botanical Journal of the Nyffeler R, Eggli U. In press. Disintegrating Portulacaceae
Linnean Society 149: 129–194.
– a new familial classification of the suborder Portulacineae Matthews ML, Endress PK. 2005b. Comparative floral
(Caryophyllales) based on molecular and morphological evi- structure and systematics in Crossosomatales (Crossoso- Ogburn RM, Edwards EJ. 2009. Anatomical variation in
Geissolomataceae, Ixerbaceae, Strasburgeriaceae). Botani- Cactaceae and relatives: trait lability and evolutionary inno- cal Journal of the Linnean Society 147: 1–46.
vation. American Journal of Botany 96: 391–408.
Matthews ML, Endress PK. 2006. Floral structure and
Oh S-H, Potter D. 2006. Description and phylogenetic posi-
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121
tion of a new angiosperm family, Guamatelaceae, inferred VI. Flowering plants. Dicotyledons. Celastrales, Oxalidales, from chloroplast rbcL, atpB, and matK sequences. System- Rosales, Cornales, Ericales. Berlin: Springer, 255–257, 266– atic Botany 31: 730–738.
Pfeil BE, Crisp MD. 2005. What to do with Hibiscus? A
Stevens PF. 2001 onwards. Angiosperm phylogeny website.
proposed nomenclatural resolution for a large and well- Available at http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/ known genus of Malvaceae and comments on paraphyly.
Takhtajan A. 1997. Diversity and classification of flowering
Australian Journal of Systematic Botany 18: 49–60.
plants. New York: Columbia University Press.
Plunkett GM. 2001. Relationship of the order Apiales to
Tank DC, Donoghue MJ. In press. Phylogeny and phylo-
subclass Asteridae: a re-evaluation of morphological char- genetic nomenclature of the Campanulidae based on an acters based on insights from molecular data. Edinburgh expanded sample of genes and taxa. Systematic Botany. In Journal of Botany 8: 183–200.
Refulio-Rodriguez NF, Olmstead R. 2008. Lamiales phy-
Tamura MN, Yamashita J, Fuse S, Haraguchi M. 2004.
logeny. In: Botany 2008. [http://2008.botanyconference.org/ Molecular phylogeny of monocotyledons inferred from com- engine/search/index.php?func=detail&aid=498] bined analysis of plastid matK and rbcL gene sequences.
Reveal J. 2008 onwards. A checklist of family and supra-
Journal of Plant Research 117: 109–120.
familial names for extant vascular plants. Available at Van Beusekom-Osinga RJ, van Beusekom CF. 1975.
http://www.plantsystematics.org/reveal/pbio/fam/ (Myrtales). Blumea 22: 255–266.
Rudall PJ, Remizowa MV, Beer AS, Bradshaw E,
Wang H, Moore MJ, Soltis PS, Bell CD, Brockington SF,
Stevenson DW, Macfarlane TD, Tuckett RE, Yadav SR,
Alexandre R, Davis CC, Latvis M, Manchester SR,
Sokoloff DD. 2008. Comparative ovule and megagameto-
Soltis DE. 2009. Rosid radiation and the rapid rise of
phyte development in Hydatellaceae and water lilies reveal angiosperm-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National a mosaic of features among the earliest angiosperms.
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:
Annals of Botany 101: 941–956.
Saarela JM, Rai HS, Doyle JA, Endress PK, Mathews S,
Winkworth RC, Lundberg J, Donoghue MJ. 2008.
Marchant AD, Briggs B, Graham SW. 2007. Hydatel-
Towards a resolution of campanulid phylogeny, with special laceae identified as a new branch near the base of the reference to the placement of Dipsacales. Taxon 57: 53–65.
angiosperm phylogenetic tree. Nature 446: 312–315.
Worberg A, Alford MH, Quandt D, Borsch T. 2009.
Simmons MP. 2004. Celastraceae. In: Kubitzki K, ed. The
Huerteales sister to Brassicales plus Malvales, and newly families and genera of vascular plants. VI. Flowering plants. circumscribed to include Dipentodon, Gerrardina, Huertea, Dicotyledons. Celastrales, Oxalidales, Rosales, Cornales, Perrottetia, and Tapiscia. Taxon 58: 468–478.
Ericales. Berlin: Springer, 29–64.
Wortley AH, Harris DJ, Scotland RW. 2007. On the
Sosa V, Chase MW. 2003. Phylogenetics of Crossosomata-
taxonomy and phylogenetic position of Thomandersia.
ceae based on rbcL sequence data. Systematic Botany 28:
Systematic Botany 32: 415–444.
Wurdack KJ, Davis CC. 2009. Malpighiales phylogenetics:
Soltis DE, Clayton JW, Davis CC, Gitzendanner MA,
gaining ground on one of the most recalcitrant clades in the Cheek M, Savolainen V, Amorin AM, Soltis PS. 2007a.
angiosperm tree of life. American Journal of Botany 96:
Phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic amphitropical family Peridiscaceae. Taxon 56: 65–73.
Zhang L-B, Simmons MP. 2006. Phylogeny and delimitation
Soltis DE, Gitzendanner MA, Soltis PS. 2007b. A 567-
of the Celastrales inferred from nuclear and plastid genes.
taxon data set for angiosperms: The challenges posed by Systematic Botany 31: 122–137.
Bayesian analyses of large data sets. International Journal Zhang Z-H, Li C-Q, Li J. 2009. Phylogenetic placement of
of Plant Sciences 168: 137–157.
Cynomorium in Rosales inferred from sequences of the Ståhl B, Anderberg AA. 2004. Maesaceae, Myrsinaceae. In:
inverted repeat region of the chloroplast genome. Journal of Kubitzki K, ed. The families and genera of vascular plants. Systematics and Evolution 47: 297–304.
2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161, 105–121

Source: http://www.florestaombrofilamista.com.br/sidol/downloads/apg.pdf