Angiosperm Phylogeny Group

From Wikipedia for FEVERv2
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, or APG, is an informal international group of systematic botanists who collaborate to establish a consensus on the taxonomy of flowering plants (angiosperms) that reflects new knowledge about plant relationships discovered through phylogenetic studies. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_0

As of 2016, four incremental versions of a classification system have resulted from this collaboration, published in 1998, 2003, 2009 and 2016. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_1

An important motivation for the group was what they considered deficiencies in prior angiosperm classifications since they were not based on monophyletic groups (i.e., groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_2

APG publications are increasingly influential, with a number of major herbaria changing the arrangement of their collections to match the latest APG system. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_3

Angiosperm classification and the APG Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_0

See also: Flowering plant § History of classification Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_4

In the past, classification systems were typically produced by an individual botanist or by a small group. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_5

The result was a large number of systems (see List of systems of plant taxonomy). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_6

Different systems and their updates were generally favoured in different countries. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_7

Examples are the Engler system in continental Europe, the Bentham & Hooker system in Britain (particularly influential because it was used by Kew), the Takhtajan system in the former Soviet Union and countries within its sphere of influence and the Cronquist system in the United States. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_8

Before the availability of genetic evidence, the classification of angiosperms (also known as flowering plants, Angiospermae, Anthophyta or Magnoliophyta) was based on their morphology (particularly of their flower) and biochemistry (the kinds of chemical compounds in the plant). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_9

After the 1980s, detailed genetic evidence analysed by phylogenetic methods became available and while confirming or clarifying some relationships in existing classification systems, it radically changed others. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_10

This genetic evidence created a rapid increase in knowledge that led to many proposed changes; stability was "rudely shattered". Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_11

This posed problems for all users of classification systems (including encyclopaedists). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_12

The impetus came from a major molecular study published in 1993 based on 5000 flowering plants and a photosynthesis gene (rbcL). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_13

This produced a number of surprising results in terms of the relationships between groupings of plants, for instance the dicotyledons were not supported as a distinct group. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_14

At first there was a reluctance to develop a new system based entirely on a single gene. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_15

However, subsequent work continued to support these findings. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_16

These research studies involved an unprecedented collaboration between a very large number of scientists. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_17

Therefore, rather than naming all the individual contributors a decision was made to adopt the name Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification, or APG for short. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_18

The first publication under this name was in 1998, and attracted considerable media attention. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_19

The intention was to provide a widely accepted and more stable point of reference for angiosperm classification. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_20

As of 2016, three revisions have been published, in 2003 (APG II), in 2009 (APG III) and in 2016 (APG IV), each superseding the previous system. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_21

Thirteen researchers have been listed as authors to the three papers, and a further 43 as contributors (see Members of the APG below). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_22

A classification presents a view at a particular point in time, based on a particular state of research. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_23

Independent researchers, including members of the APG, continue to publish their own views on areas of angiosperm taxonomy. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_24

Classifications change, however inconvenient this is to users. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_25

However, the APG publications are increasingly regarded as an authoritative point of reference and the following are some examples of the influence of the APG system: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_26

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_unordered_list_0

  • A significant number of major herbaria, including Kew, are changing the order of their collections in accordance with APG.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_0_0
  • The influential World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (also from Kew) is being updated to the APG III system.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_0_1
  • In the United States in 2006, a photographic survey of the plants of the USA and Canada is organized according to the APG II system.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_0_2
  • In the UK, the 2010 edition of the standard flora of the British Isles (by Stace) is based on the APG III system. The previous editions were based on the Cronquist system.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_0_3

Principles of the APG system Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_1

The principles of the APG's approach to classification were set out in the first paper of 1998, and have remained unchanged in subsequent revisions. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_27

Briefly, these are: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_28

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_unordered_list_1

  • The Linnean system of orders and families should be retained. "The family is central in flowering plant systematics." An ordinal classification of families is proposed as a "reference tool of broad utility". Orders are considered to be of particular value in teaching and in studying family relationships.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_1_4
  • Groups should be monophyletic (i.e. consist of all descendants of a common ancestor). The main reason why existing systems are rejected is because they do not have this property, they are not phylogenetic.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_1_5
  • A broad approach is taken to defining the limits of groups such as orders and families. Thus of orders, it is said that a limited number of larger orders will be more useful. Families containing only a single genus and orders containing only a single family are avoided where this is possible without violating the over-riding requirement for monophyly.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_1_6
  • Above or parallel to the level of orders and families, the term clades is used more freely. (Some clades have later been given formal names in a paper associated with the 2009 revision of the APG system.) The authors say that it is "not possible, nor is it desirable" to name all clades in a phylogenetic tree; however, systematists need to agree on names for some clades, particularly orders and families, to facilitate communication and discussion.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_1_7

For a detailed discussion on phylogenetic nomenclature, see Cantino et al. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_29

(2007).) Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_30

APG I (1998) Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_2

See also: APG system Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_31

The initial 1998 paper by the APG made angiosperms the first large group of organisms to be systematically re-classified primarily on the basis of genetic characteristics. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_32

The paper explained the authors' view that there is a need for a classification system for angiosperms at the level of families, orders and above, but that existing classifications were "outdated". Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_33

The main reason why existing systems were rejected was because they were not phylogenetic, i.e. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_34

not based on strictly monophyletic groups (groups which consist of all descendants of a common ancestor). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_35

An ordinal classification of flowering plant families was proposed as a "reference tool of broad utility". Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_36

The broad approach adopted to defining the limits of orders resulted in the recognition of 40 orders, compared to, for example, 232 in Takhtajan's 1997 classification. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_37

In 1998 only a handful of families had been adequately studied, but the primary aim was to obtain a consensus on the naming of higher orders. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_38

Such a consensus proved relatively easy to achieve but the resultant tree was highly unresolved. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_39

That is, while the relationship of orders was established, their composition was not. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_40

Other features of the proposed classification included: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_41

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_unordered_list_2

  • Formal, scientific names are not used above the level of order, named clades being used instead. Thus eudicots and monocots are not given a formal rank on the grounds that "it is not yet clear at which level they should be recognized".Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_2_8
  • A substantial number of taxa whose classification had traditionally been uncertain are given places, although there still remain 25 families of "uncertain position".Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_2_9
  • Alternative classifications are provided for some groups, in which a number of families can either be regarded as separate or can be merged into a single larger family. For example, the Fumariaceae can either be treated as a separate family or as part of Papaveraceae.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_2_10

A major outcome of the classification was the disappearance of the traditional division of the flowering plants into two groups, monocots and dicots. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_42

The monocots were recognized as a clade, but the dicots were not, with a number of former dicots being placed in separate groups basal to both monocots and the remaining dicots, the eudicots or 'true dicots'. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_43

The overall scheme was relatively simple. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_44

This consisted of a grade consisting of isolated taxa (referred to as ANITA), followed by the major angiosperm radiation, clades of monocots, magnolids and eudicots. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_45

The last being a large clade with smaller subclades and two main groupings, rosids and asterids, each in turn having two major subclades. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_46

APG II (2003) Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_3

See also: APG II system Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_47

As the overall relationship between groups of flowering plants became clearer, the focus shifted to the family level, in particular those families generally accepted as problematic. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_48

Again, consensus was achieved relatively easily resulting in an updated classification at the family level. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_49

The second paper published by the APG in 2003 presented an update to the original classification of 1998. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_50

The authors stated that changes were proposed only when there was "substantial new evidence" which supported them. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_51

The classification continued the tradition of seeking broad circumscriptions of taxa, for example trying to place small families containing only one genus in a larger group. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_52

The authors stated that they have generally accepted the views of specialists, although noting that specialists "nearly always favour splitting of groups" regarded as too varied in their morphology. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_53

APG II continued and indeed extends the use of alternative 'bracketed' taxa allowing the choice of either a large family or a number of smaller ones. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_54

For example, the large family Asparagaceae includes 7 'bracketed' families which can either be considered as part of the Asparagaceae or as separate families. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_55

Some of the main changes in APG II were: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_56

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_unordered_list_3

  • New orders are proposed, particularly to accommodate the 'basal clades' left as families in the first system.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_3_11
  • Many of the previously unplaced families are now located within the system.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_3_12
  • Several major families are re-structured.Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_item_3_13

In 2007, a paper was published giving a linear ordering of the families in APG II, suitable for ordering herbarium specimens, for example. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_57

APG III (2009) Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_4

See also: APG III system Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_58

The third paper from the APG updates the system described in the 2003 paper. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_59

The broad outline of the system remains unchanged, but the number of previously unplaced families and genera is significantly reduced. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_60

This requires the recognition of both new orders and new families compared to the previous classification. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_61

The number of orders goes up from 45 to 59; only 10 families are not placed in an order and only two of these (Apodanthaceae and Cynomoriaceae) are left entirely outside the classification. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_62

The authors say that they have tried to leave long-recognized families unchanged, while merging families with few genera. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_63

They "hope the classification [...] will not need much further change." Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_64

A major change is that the paper discontinues the use of 'bracketed' families in favour of larger, more inclusive families. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_65

As a result, the APG III system contains only 415 families, rather than the 457 of APG II. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_66

For example, the agave family (Agavaceae) and the hyacinth family (Hyacinthaceae) are no longer regarded as distinct from the broader asparagus family (Asparagaceae). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_67

The authors say that alternative circumscriptions, as in APG I and II, are likely to cause confusion and that major herbaria which are re-arranging their collections in accordance with the APG approach have all agreed to use the more inclusive families. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_68

This approach is being increasingly used in collections in herbaria and botanic gardens. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_69

In the same volume of the journal, two related papers were published. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_70

One gives a linear ordering of the families in APG III; as with the linear ordering published for APG II, this is intended for ordering herbarium specimens, for example. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_71

The other paper gives, for the first time, a classification of the families in APG III which uses formal taxonomic ranks; previously only informal clade names were used above the ordinal level. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_72

APG IV (2016) Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_5

Further information: APG IV system Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_73

In the development of a fourth version there was some controversy over the methodology, and the development of a consensus proved more difficult than in previous iterations. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_74

In particular Peter Stevens questioned the validity of discussions regarding family delimitation in the absence of changes of phylogenetic relationships. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_75

Further progress was made by the use of large banks of genes, including those of plastid, mitochondrial and nuclear ribosomal origin, such as that of Douglas Soltis and colleagues (2011). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_76

The fourth version was finally published in 2016. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_77

It arose from an international conference hosted at the Royal Botanical Gardens in September 2015 and also an online survey of botanists and other users. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_78

The broad outline of the system remains unchanged but several new orders are included (Boraginales, Dilleniales, Icacinales, Metteniusales and Vahliales), some new families are recognised (Kewaceae, Macarthuriaceae, Maundiaceae, Mazaceae, Microteaceae, Nyssaceae, Peraceae, Petenaeaceae and Petiveriaceae) and some previously recognised families are lumped (Aristolochiaceae now includes Lactoridaceae and Hydnoraceae; Restionaceae now re-includes Anarthriaceae and Centrolepidaceae; and Buxaceae now includes Haptanthaceae). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_79

Due to nomenclatural issues, the family name Asphodelaceae is used instead of Xanthorrhoeaceae, and Francoaceae is used instead of Melianthaceae (and now also includes Vivianiaceae). Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_80

This brings the total number of orders and families recognized in the APG system to 64 and 416, respectively. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_81

Two additional informal major clades, superrosids and superasterids, that each comprise the additional orders that are included in the larger clades dominated by the rosids and asterids are also included. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_82

APG IV also uses the linear approach (LAPG) as advocated by Haston et al. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_83

(2009) In a supplemental file Byng et al. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_84

provide an alphabetical list of families by orders. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_85

Updates Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_6

Peter Stevens, one of the authors of all four of the APG papers, maintains a web site, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (APWeb), hosted by the Missouri Botanical Garden, which has been regularly updated since 2001, and is a useful source for the latest research in angiosperm phylogeny which follows the APG approach. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_86

Other sources include the Angiosperm Phylogeny Poster and The Flowering Plants Handbook. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_87

Members of the APG Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_7

Listed as "author" of one or more of the papers Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_8

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_table_general_0

NameAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_0_0_0 APG IAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_0_0_1 APG IIAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_0_0_2 APG IIIAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_0_0_3 APG IVAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_0_0_4 Institutional affiliationAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_0_0_5
Birgitta BremerAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_1_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_1_1 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_1_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_1_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_1_4 Swedish Academy of SciencesAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_1_5
Kåre BremerAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_2_0 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_2_1 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_2_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_2_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_2_4 Uppsala University; Stockholm UniversityAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_2_5
James W. ByngAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_3_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_3_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_3_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_3_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_3_4 Plant Gateway; University of AberdeenAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_3_5
Mark Wayne ChaseAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_4_0 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_4_1 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_4_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_4_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_4_4 Royal Botanic Gardens, KewAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_4_5
Maarten J.M. ChristenhuszAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_5_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_5_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_5_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_5_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_5_4 Plant Gateway; Royal Botanic Gardens, KewAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_5_5
Michael F. FayAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_6_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_6_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_6_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_6_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_6_4 Royal Botanic Gardens, KewAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_6_5
Walter S. JuddAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_7_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_7_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_7_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_7_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_7_4 University of FloridaAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_7_5
David J. MabberleyAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_8_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_8_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_8_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_8_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_8_4 University of Oxford; Universiteit Leiden; Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Macquarie University; National Herbarium of New South WalesAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_8_5
James L. RevealAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_9_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_9_1 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_9_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_9_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_9_4 University of Maryland; Cornell UniversityAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_9_5
Alexander N. SennikovAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_10_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_10_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_10_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_10_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_10_4 Finnish Museum of Natural History; Komarov Botanical InstituteAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_10_5
Douglas E. SoltisAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_11_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_11_1 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_11_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_11_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_11_4 University of FloridaAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_11_5
Pamela S. SoltisAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_12_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_12_1 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_12_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_12_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_12_4 Florida Museum of Natural HistoryAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_12_5
Peter F. StevensAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_13_0 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_13_1 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_13_2 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_13_3 aAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_13_4 Harvard University Herbaria; University of Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri Botanical GardenAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_0_13_5

a = listed as an author; c = listed as a contributor Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_88

Listed as "contributor" to one or more of the papers Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_section_9

Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_table_general_1

NameAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_1_0_0 APG IAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_1_0_1 APG IIAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_1_0_2 APG IIIAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_1_0_3 APG IVAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_header_cell_1_0_4
Arne A. AnderbergAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_1_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_1_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_1_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_1_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_1_4
Anders BacklundAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_2_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_2_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_2_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_2_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_2_4
Barbara G. BriggsAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_3_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_3_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_3_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_3_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_3_4
Samuel BrockingtonAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_4_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_4_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_4_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_4_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_4_4
Alain ChautemsAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_5_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_5_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_5_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_5_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_5_4
John C. ClarkAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_6_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_6_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_6_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_6_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_6_4
John ConranAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_7_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_7_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_7_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_7_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_7_4
Peter K. EndressAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_8_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_8_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_8_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_8_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_8_4
Peter GoldblattAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_9_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_9_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_9_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_9_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_9_4
Mats H.G. GustafsonAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_10_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_10_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_10_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_10_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_10_4
Elspeth HastonAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_11_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_11_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_11_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_11_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_11_4
Sara B. HootAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_12_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_12_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_12_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_12_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_12_4
Walter S. JuddAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_13_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_13_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_13_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_13_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_13_4
Mari KällersjöAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_14_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_14_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_14_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_14_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_14_4
Jesper KårehedAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_15_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_15_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_15_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_15_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_15_4
Elizabeth A. KelloggAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_16_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_16_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_16_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_16_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_16_4
Kathleen A. KronAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_17_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_17_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_17_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_17_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_17_4
Donald H. LesAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_18_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_18_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_18_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_18_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_18_4
Johannes LundbergAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_19_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_19_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_19_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_19_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_19_4
Michael MollerAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_20_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_20_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_20_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_20_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_20_4
Michael J. MooreAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_21_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_21_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_21_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_21_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_21_4
Cynthia M. MortonAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_22_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_22_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_22_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_22_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_22_4
Daniel L. NickrentAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_23_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_23_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_23_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_23_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_23_4
Richard G. OlmsteadAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_24_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_24_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_24_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_24_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_24_4
Bengt OxelmanAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_25_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_25_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_25_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_25_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_25_4
Mathieu PerretAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_26_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_26_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_26_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_26_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_26_4
J. Chris PiresAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_27_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_27_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_27_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_27_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_27_4
Robert A. PriceAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_28_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_28_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_28_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_28_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_28_4
Christopher J. QuinnAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_29_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_29_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_29_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_29_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_29_4
James E. RodmanAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_30_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_30_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_30_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_30_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_30_4
Paula J. RudallAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_31_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_31_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_31_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_31_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_31_4
Vincent SavolainenAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_32_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_32_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_32_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_32_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_32_4
Laurence SkogAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_33_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_33_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_33_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_33_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_33_4
James SmithAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_34_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_34_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_34_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_34_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_34_4
Kenneth J. SytsmaAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_35_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_35_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_35_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_35_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_35_4
David C. TankAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_36_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_36_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_36_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_36_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_36_4
Mats ThulinAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_37_0 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_37_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_37_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_37_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_37_4
Maria VorontsovaAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_38_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_38_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_38_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_38_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_38_4
Michelle van der BankAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_39_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_39_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_39_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_39_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_39_4
Anton WeberAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_40_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_40_1 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_40_2 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_40_3 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_40_4
Kenneth WurdackAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_41_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_41_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_41_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_41_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_41_4
Jenny Q.-Y. XiangAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_42_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_42_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_42_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_42_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_42_4
Sue ZmarztyAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_43_0 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_43_1 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_43_2 cAngiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_43_3 Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_cell_1_43_4

c = listed as a contributor Angiosperm Phylogeny Group_sentence_89


Credits to the contents of this page go to the authors of the corresponding Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiosperm Phylogeny Group.