[Taxacom] Stuessy's 2010 classification of angiosperms

Kenneth Kinman kennethkinman at webtv.net
Thu Mar 17 13:23:08 CDT 2011


Dear All,
      It was brought to my attention that in reaction to the 2009
*cladification* (by Chase and Reveal), an alternative classification of
angiosperms was published by Stuessy, 2010 ["Paraphyly and the origin
and classification of angiosperms"; in Taxon, vol. 59(3):689-63].  I
have to agree that his classification is much more reasonable, not to
mention more useful to most people who need such classifications.    
      He divides Phylum Magnoliophyta (angiosperms) into 3 Classes:
Archaeangiospermae, Monocotyledonae (monocots), and Dicotyledonae
(eudicots).  These are the same three Classes which I use, except that I
use typified names: Magnoliopsida, Liliopsida, and Rosopsida.  So take
your pick which kind of names you prefer (descriptive or typified), the
three classes are the same (except possibly for Order Ceratophyllales;
I'm not sure if he would place them in Archaeangiospermae, but its
position remains problematic).    
       Anyway, one could reduce the three classes to 3 subclasses within
a single class for angiosperms. However, reducing angiosperms to a
Subclass Magnoliidae is a bad idea.  It is not only an excessive
demotion (as though they are less "significant"), but it would clog the
literature with completely different meanings for Subclass Magnoliidae:
all angiosperms (if you follow Chase and Reveal), or the traditional
Magnoliids (if you follow Stuessy or APG).   
            ----------Ken                





More information about the Taxacom mailing list