Angiosperm Phylogeny Group

Contents

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group is a collaborative consortium of botanists and systematists formed to produce a consensus classification for flowering plants based on phylogenetic evidence. The Group has issued iterative classification schemes that have influenced taxonomic practice in herbaria, botanical gardens, and academic curricula across institutions such as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Missouri Botanical Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, and universities like Harvard University and University of Oxford. Its work intersects with initiatives and organizations including the International Botanical Congress, Biodiversity Heritage Library, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, and major journals such as Nature, Science, and Taxon.

History and formation

The consortium originated in the late 1990s when taxonomists from institutions including Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Missouri Botanical Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, New York Botanical Garden, University of California, Berkeley, University of Chicago, University of Cambridge, and Australian National University convened to reconcile competing systems proposed by authorities like Arthur Cronquist, Takhtajan, and Robert Thorne. Early participants included researchers affiliated with projects at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and research groups connected to the National Center for Biotechnology Information and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory. Formal publications by the consortium began as collaborative papers that were circulated among societies such as the International Association for Plant Taxonomy and presented at meetings of the International Botanical Congress and the Botanical Society of America.

The Group published successive classification schemes commonly cited by herbaria and floras: initial consensus papers followed by revised frameworks often referenced in floristic works at institutions like the Missouri Botanical Garden and national floras produced in collaboration with organizations such as the United States Department of Agriculture and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Major outputs have appeared in journals including Taxon, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Annals of Botany, and broader outlets such as Nature. These publications restructured ranks from family to order and informed treatments used by projects like the Flora of China, Flora Europaea, Flora of North America, and digital resources developed by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the Biodiversity Heritage Library.

The Group’s approach synthesizes molecular sequence data generated at laboratories associated with University of California, Berkeley, Smithsonian Institution, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Max Planck Society, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies with morphological assessments from herbaria such as the New York Botanical Garden Herbarium, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh Herbarium, and the Kew Herbarium. Primary molecular loci included plastid markers often sequenced in collaboration with facilities like the European Molecular Biology Laboratory and the National Center for Biotechnology Information sequence repositories; phylogenetic inference used software developed by groups linked to University of Washington, University of California, Davis, University of Glasgow, and computational methods discussed at meetings of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. Results were integrated with fossil-calibrated chronograms informed by paleobotanical work associated with museums such as the Natural History Museum, London and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.

Revisions by the consortium reorganized numerous orders and families, affecting treatments in institutional floras and collections at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Missouri Botanical Garden, New York Botanical Garden, Smithsonian Institution, and university herbaria including Harvard University Herbaria and Oxford University Herbaria. Changes influenced curricula at universities such as University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, Harvard University, and University of California, Berkeley and were incorporated into reference works like the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website and databases managed by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Major taxonomic shifts echoed in conservation assessments carried out by agencies including the International Union for Conservation of Nature and national agencies like the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

The consortium faced critiques from taxonomists at institutions such as University of Vienna, Swedish Museum of Natural History, University of São Paulo, and independent researchers who questioned reliance on plastid loci and consensus-driven rank assignments. Debates played out in venues like Taxon, American Journal of Botany, and conferences of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy and the Botanical Society of America, where scholars raised issues about alternative classifications promoted by proponents of systems influenced by Arthur Cronquist and Takhtajan. Some herbaria and national floras, including contributors to the Flora of China and regional treatments in Australia and Brazil, negotiated transitional implementations, and legalistic nomenclatural discussions engaged participants at sessions of the International Botanical Congress.

The Group’s classifications shaped research programs at universities and institutes such as Harvard University, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Missouri Botanical Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Max Planck Society, and Australian National University, influencing phylogenetic curricula, graduate training, and grant priorities at funders like the National Science Foundation and European Research Council. The schemes underpinned digitization efforts by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the Biodiversity Heritage Library and were adopted in teaching collections and public displays at botanical gardens including Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Missouri Botanical Garden. The consortium’s consensus model also affected editorial and peer review norms in journals such as Nature, Science, Taxon, and American Journal of Botany.

Category:Botanical organizations