Some Realignments in the Angiospermae

  • Robert F. Thorne
Part of the Plant Systematics and Evolution / Entwicklungsgeschichte und Systematik der Pflanzen book series (SYSTEMATICS, volume 1)


The system of classification that I have developed since 1950 to indicate the phylogenetic relationships of the higher taxa of the flowering plants has for the most part been published only in synoptical form. Since some of my more iconoclastic alignments have not been fully explained in print, this paper attempts to explain my reasons for some of the more innovative of these positionings.

My classification of the Angiospermae deviates considerably from others now widely accepted in several major ways. Because I attempt to stress relationships more than differences, my taxa tend to be more inclusive, while the differences within the major categories are recognized through the use of subcategories like suborders and subfamilies. Family names are in accord with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature though the nine “exceptional” names are dropped as obsolete. Also for the sake of uniformity in phylogeny I have extended the principle of priority to the names of orders and other higher categories up to the class, anticipating a future rule or recommendation of the Code.

Taxa that are treated in some detail with explanation of the alignments are: the Aquifoliaceae, Sarraceniaceae, and Nepenthaceae of the Theales and Plumbaginaceae of the Primulales in the Theiflorae; Fouquieriaceae with Polemoniineae and Solanineae of the Solanales in the Malviflorae; Gyrostemonaceae, Stylobasium Desf., and Emblingia F. Muell. of Sapindineae and Balis L. of Batineae, Rutales, in the Rutiflorae; Crossosomataceae of Rosineae, Rosales, and Buxaceae (excluding Simmondsia Nutt.), Buxineae, and Balanopaceae, Daphniphyllineae, in the Pittosporales of the Rosiflorae; Asteraceae of the Asteriflorae near the Corniflorae and Lamiiflorae and all three less closely with Saxifragineae of the Rosiflorae; Alismatiflorae as less primitive in the Monocotyledoneae than the Liliiflorae; and Juncineae and Poineae in the Commeliniflorae.


Pollen Morphology Salt Gland Starchy Endosperm Primitive Feature Angiosperm Phylogeny 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Airy Shaw, H. K., 1952: On the Dioncophyllaceae, a remarkable new family of flowering plants. Kew Bull. 1951, 327–347.Google Scholar
  2. Baas, P., 1975: Vegetative anatomy and the affinities of Aquifoliaceae, Sphenostemon, Phelline, and Oncotheca.. Blumea 22, 311–407.Google Scholar
  3. Bentvelzen, P. A. J., 1962: Primulaceae. Flora Males., ser. I, 6 (2), 173–192.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, S. C., 1976: Biochemistry of Simmondsia chinensis. M. A. Thesis, Claremont Grad. School, Claremont, Calif. 72 p.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, N., and Thomson, W. W., 1976: The ultrastructure of Frankenia salt glands. Ann. Bot. 40, 681–686.Google Scholar
  6. Carlquist, S., 1976: Tribal interrelationships and phylogeny of the Asteraceae. Aliso 8, 465–492.Google Scholar
  7. Dahlgren, R., 1975: A system of classification of the angiosperms to be used to demonstrate the distribution of characters. Bot. Notiser 128, 119–147.Google Scholar
  8. Dahlgren, R., Jensen, S. R., and Nielsen, B. J., 1976: Iridoid compounds in Fou-quieriaceae and notes on its possible affinities. Bot. Notiser 129, 207–212.Google Scholar
  9. Debuhr, L. E., 1975: Phylogenetic relationships of the Sarraceniaceae. Taxon 24, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdtman, G., 1952: Pollen Morphology and Plant Taxonomy. An Introduction to Palynology. I. Angiosperms. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  11. Erdtman, G., 1958: A note on the pollen morphology in the Ancistrocladaceae and Dioncophyllaceae. Veröffentlich, geobot. Inst. Rübel Zürich 33, 47–49.Google Scholar
  12. Erdtman, G., Leins, P., Melville, R., and Metcalfe, C. R., 1969: On the relationships of Emblingia Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 62, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fryns-Claessens, E., and Van Cotthem, W., 1973: A new classification of the ontogenetic types of stomata. Bot. Rev. 39, 71–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldblatt, P., Nowicke, J. W., Mabry, T. J., and Behnke, H.-D., 1976: Gyrostemonaceae: status and affinity. Bot. Notiser 129, 201–206.Google Scholar
  15. Gottwald, H., und Parameswaran, N., 1968: Das sekundäre Xylem und die systematische Stellung der Ancistrocladaceae und Dioncophyllaceae. Bot. Jb. 88, 49–69.Google Scholar
  16. Grant, V., 1959: Natural History of the Phlox Family. I. Systematic Botany. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  17. Harborne, J. B., 1967: Comparative biochemistry of the flavonoids—IV. Correlations between chemistry, pollen morphology and systematics in the family Plumbaginaceae. Phytochem. 6, 1415–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henrickson, J. S., 1967: Pollen morphology of the Fouquieriaceae. Aliso 6, 137–160.Google Scholar
  19. Henrickson, J. S., 1969: The succulent Fouquierias. Cactus and Succulent J. 41, 178–184.Google Scholar
  20. Henrickson, J. S., 1972: A taxonomic revision of the Fouquieriaceae. Aliso 7, 439–537.Google Scholar
  21. Henrickson, J. S., 1973: Fouquieriaceae DC. World Pollen and Spore Flora 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, T. C., 1965: Monograph of Daphniphyllum (1). Taiwania 11, 57–98.Google Scholar
  23. Keng, H., 1967: Observations on Ancistrocladus tectorius. Gard. Bull. Singapore 22, 113–121.Google Scholar
  24. Keng, H., 1970: Further observations on Ancistrocladus tectorius (Ancistrocladaceae). Gard. Bull. Singapore 25, 235–237.Google Scholar
  25. Lindley, J., 1833: Nixus Plantarum. London.Google Scholar
  26. Maguire, B., 1972: The botany of the Guayana Highland—Part IX. Bonnetiaceae. Mem. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 23, 131–165.Google Scholar
  27. Maguire, B., De Zeeuw, C., Huang, Y.-C., and Clare, C. C., jr., 1972: The botany of the Guayana Highland—Part IX. Tetrameristaceae. Mem. N. Y. Bot. Gard. 23, 165–192.Google Scholar
  28. Melchior, H. (Ed.), 1964: A. Engler’s Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, 12. Aufl., Bd. II. Angiospermen. Berlin: Gebr. Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  29. Metcalfe, C. R., 1952: The anatomical structure of the Dioncophyllaceae in relation to the taxonomic affinities of the family. Kew Bull. 1951, 351–368.Google Scholar
  30. Metcalfe, C. R., and Chalk, L., 1950: Anatomy of the Dicotyledons: Leaves, Stem, and Wood in Relation to Taxonomy, with Notes on Economic Uses. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Prance, G. T., 1965: The systematic position of Stylobasium Desf. Bull. Jardin Bot. État Bruxelles 35, 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prijanto, B., 1970 a. Gyrostemonaceae. In: World Pollen Flora (Erdtman, G., Ed.), 2, 5–13. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  33. Prijanto, B., 1970 b: Batidaceae. In: World Pollen Flora (Erdtman, G., Ed.), 3, 5–11. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  34. Royen, P. van, 1956: A new Batidacea, Batis argillicola. Nova Guinea, n. ser. 7, 186–196.Google Scholar
  35. Royen, P. van, 1957: Batidaceae. Fl. Males., ser. I, 5, 414–415.Google Scholar
  36. Schmid, R., 1964: Die systematische Stellung der Dioncophyllaceen. Bot. Jb. 83, 1–56.Google Scholar
  37. Scholz, H., 1964: Sapindales. In: A. Engler’s Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, 12. Aufl., Bd. II. Angiospermen (Melchior, H., Ed.), 277–288. Berlin: Gebr. Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  38. Stafleu, F. A. (Chairman, Ed. Comm.), 1972: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Reg. Veget. 82, 1–426.Google Scholar
  39. Steenis, C. G. G. J. van, 1948: Ancistrocladaceae. Fl. Males., ser. I, 4 (1), 8–10.Google Scholar
  40. Tatsuno, A.M., 1976: A biochemical profile of Crossosomataceae. M. A. Thesis, Claremont Grad. School, Claremont, Calif. 125 p.Google Scholar
  41. Thorne, R. F., 1958: Some guiding principles of angiosperm phylogeny. Brittonia 10, 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thorne, R. F., 1963: Some problems and guiding principles of angiosperm phylogeny. Amer. Natural. 97, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thorne, R. F., 1968: Synopsis of a putatively phylogenetic classification of the flowering plants. Aliso 6 (4), 57–66.Google Scholar
  44. Thorne, R. F., 1973: Inclusion of the Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) in the Araliaceae. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 32, 161–165.Google Scholar
  45. Thorne, R. F., 1974 a: The “Amentiferae” or Hamamelidae as an artificial group: a summary statement. Brittonia 25, 395–405 (for Oct.—Dec, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thorne, R. F., 1974 b: Sapindales. Encycl. Brit., Ed. 15, 16, 239–244.Google Scholar
  47. Thorne, R. F., 1974 c: A phylogenetic classification of the Annoniflorae. Aliso 8, 147–209.Google Scholar
  48. Thorne, R. F., 1975: Angiosperm phylogeny and geography. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62, 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thorne, R. F., 1976: A phylogenetic classification of the Angiospermae. Evol. Biol. 9, 35–106.Google Scholar
  50. Wagenitz, G., 1976: Systematics and phylogeny of the Compositae (Asteraceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 125, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walia, K., and Kapil, R. N., 1965: Embryology of Frankenia Linn, with some comments on the systematic position of the Frankeniaceae. Bot. Notiser 118, 412–429.Google Scholar
  52. Wunderlich, R., 1971: Die systematische Stellung von Theligonum. (Zugleich eine kritische Zusammenstellung einiger embryologischer, anatomischer und morphologischer Merkmale der Rubiaceae.) Österr. Bot. Z. 119, 329–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert F. Thorne
    • 1
  1. 1.Rancho Santa Ana Botanic GardenClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations