Talk:APG III system

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Here is the list of errors I detected:

• MAGNOLIIDS orders order is incorrect
• monocots orders order is incorrect
• eudicots orders order is incorrect
• "eurosids I" orders order is incorrect
• "eurosids II" orders order is incorrect

  + "(back to core eudicots)" is wrong: Berberidopsidales, Caryophyllales, Santalales are included in "eurosids II"

• "LAMIIDS" unplaced families are wrong, the correct values are: Boraginaceae, Vahliaceae, Icacinaceae, Metteniusaceae, Oncothecaceae
• "campanulids" orders order is incorrect

You will find the correction in the french version fr:Classification APG III
If you want the officiel pdf of APGIII to check the errors, just send me a mail.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the article in question and by no means are Caryophyllales, Berberidopsidales, and Santalales included in the eurosid II clade. I admit the way in which they present the lists is a bit confusing, jumping from order to order, sometimes without headings. It could lead one to the mistaken conclusion that the heading (such as "Malvids" on page 113) represents a clade and that all orders below it are contained within that clade. The order is meant to somewhat follow the cladogram in Figure 1 and you can clearly see that Caryophyllales, Berberidopsidales, and Santalales are not included in the labeled Malvids clade.

And for our purposes, the order in which orders are listed is not relevant. All we need to know is which is contained within which clade. I, actually, would prefer alphabetical. The lamiid unplaced families needs to be fixed and I will take care of that. Thanks for noting that. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I also saw the cladogram, which shows my error on Caryophyllales, Berberidopsidales, and Santalales, which as you said is NOT included in the eurosid II.

Thanks Liné1 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
were can I find the genera of the APGIII families ?
In Kew Garden web site ? They say here that they follow APGIII (but on this page for APGIII they provide a link which does not correspond to APGIII but to APWebsite (which does not follow APGIII).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but suspect you'd have to piece it together from multiple sources (with the APG III paper itself being the most important, but I'd be a bit surprised if it lists everything down to genus level). Kingdon (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Kubitzki system is the only one that goes to genus level, but it was never completed, and much of it has been made obsolete by studies of DNA sequences. For many families, there is much uncertainty and disagreement about dividing the family into genera. For the most recent literature on a given family, i would consult APweb, which you provide a link to above. Unfortunately, most of the literature that they cite can not be found online, and much of it can not even be found in most university libraries. 66.91.100.63 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted an edit that i made on 30Mar2010 and accused me of vandalism. I can understand that one might disagree with what i did. For example, some of what i did might be considered redundant, trivial, or uninteresting, but an accusation of vandalism is totally unwarranted. The reversion was made by ClueBot which appears to not be an actual person. Whoever is hiding behind cluebot should take responsibility for this. I believe that i and the readers are owed an explanation for the charges of vandalism. If this person can not undo the damage to my reputation, he should discontinue the CluelessBot. I tried to report a false positive, but my report was rejected for reasons that only a computer specialist could understand. This is another devious way for someone to avoid responsibility for what they have done. Some of the Wikipedia editors should try to understand that we are not all computer specialists. Some of us have other areas of knowledge. I hope that the person who accused me of vandalism will make his case on this page. 128.171.106.243 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. ClueBot is an automated tool that checks all new changes and reverts ones that match a number of specific criteria, so there's no "someone" accusing you of anything. It very occasionally gets something wrong - it did only say "possible vandalism", which is its standard message, and I really don't think anyone is going to see a single low-level warning from ClueBot as damage to your reputation. But you are welcome to remove the warning from your talk page yourself - it's only there to inform you what ClueBot did, so once you've seen it, you can dispose of it. (Nobody is going to disable ClueBot, btw, as it reverts massive quantities of genuine vandalism every day and rarely gets false positives). Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing a detailed response to this problem. 128.171.106.243 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Phylogeny' section reads as follows:

The APG III system was based on a phylogenetic tree for the angiosperms which included all of the 59 orders and 4 of the unplaced families. The systematic positions of the other 6 unplaced families was so uncertain that they could not be placed in any of the polytomies in the tree. They are shown in the table above.

But where is this table the article speaks of? SyP (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity here. The section that i had referred to may not be a table in the strictest sense and was not labeled as such. I have put in an internal link to the appropriate section. 128.171.106.243 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the phylogenetic tree appears to be correct. However, in every browser I've tried under the Mac OS X (I don't have Windows or Linux access at present), the very last part of the tree which should be below Apiales) is missing.

Can someone confirm that this is true for them? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor 128.171.106.249 sensibly split the cladogram, since it appears that there is indeed at present an error in the {{clade}} template: its maximum depth is exceeded by the entire cladogram, without a warning message. I've slightly altered his/her layout and left a comment in the source. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The layout by Peter coxhead is better than what i had done. My layout had useless redundancy. I have not yet examined the clade template and i am glad that somebody understands it. I had tried a smaller font size, but that did not allow a larger tree. 128.171.106.250 (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.252 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 April 2010[reply]

Let's remember this is simply a system of plant classification proposed by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group as a revision of previous classifications. It may be a very good and phylogenetically rather accurate system but it is a certain perspective and a work in progress and should be treated as such. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but i think that it is worth noting that the APG III system is a considerable advance over the previous system, because it is based on DNA sequence data, most of which has been only recently collected. 128.171.106.252 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been looking into the Phylogeny of the Angiosperms (especially regarding the main/higher level clades), for university studies and was a bit perplexed to find one node not fully resolved. So I looked at the tree this one is sourced from, and found that some of the information there was not represented in the tree here (regarding branching of Magnoliids+Chloranthales vs monocots and eudicots.

I've attemted to fix this, but for one, I don't see how I might reallign all the spacing. More importantly, in my version "Malvales" is dropped, and I can't see why. If anyone more technically adept could look into the issue, that'd be great :D ! Regards Sean Heron (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links that you provide does not work, so i am unsure of which tree you refer to. My guess is that information from the original tree was not included because it had low statistical support. Many authors automatically collapse clades that have less than 50% bootstrap support. The clade that you mention was discussed in detail by Michael J. Moore, et alii (2007). This source is cited at Mesangiospermae. 128.171.106.252 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some disagreement over the number of families in the APG III system. I suspect that this is because Apodanthaceae and Cynomoriaceae are easy to overlook because when APG III was published, these 2 families were included in a separate section entitled "Taxa of uncertain position" (page 118). When i added some data to this article in March 2010, i carefully counted the families and got 415. I counted the number of families in each order. I would like to post this information to make it easy for others to verify my count. Should i add this information to the article or post it here on the talk page ? 66.91.100.63 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this is interesting and verifiable information, it should be put into the article (referenced of course). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally posted the numbers. The format could certainly be improved, but i am unsure of how to do it. 66.91.100.63 (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have the documentation that i used to put statstics into this article in March of 2010, so i had to start from scratch to check what i had done. I am surprised to find that no one has yet pointed out the following errors.

1. I wrote that APG III put 3 families in Paracryphiales. Actually the order is monofamilial (Paracryphiaceae). That is where the additional 2 families came from.

2. I dont know how i counted 457 families in APG II. There were only 456. I suspect that i had assumed that Haptanthaceae was in there somewhere.

3. I wrote that 18 of the non-bracketed families had been discontinued. The correct number is 20. I had omitted that Ixerbaceae was sunk into Strasburgeriaceae and that Sphenostemonaceae was sunk into Paracryphiaceae.

4. I wrote that there were 20 new families in APG III. Actually, there were 21. I had failed to list Haptanthaceae.

The result of all this is that the Linear APG III of Elspeth Haston et alii is complete and correct. There are 413 families in APG III. The change from APG II to APG III can be represented by the following equation: 456 - 44 - 20 + 21 = 456 - 44 + 1 = 412 + 1 = 413. My apologies to anyone who had depended on the accuracy of those numbers. 72.234.240.55 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good thing if articles on higher plant groups included some attempt to chalracterise the group. For instance, Gentianales. The article says nothing of similarities and differences. What do the members share? How similar are the flowers? Even the nature of the failure - the diversity - would be interesting. Wodorabe (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but those articles that are more complete do include characterizations. See Asparagales, for example. It's not that plant editors don't want to add this information, rather a lack of numbers and time. Why not have a go yourself? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I divided the phylogenetic tree at "core eudicots". This results in only one (continued) section. I do not know whether to title the section Core eudicots or core eudicots. I am pretty sure I divided the tree correctly but someone should check. I will try a combined tree to see if the software has been upgraded in the last 5 years.User-duck (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I combined the tree and it renders on my computer. Feel free to revert the last change if there are problems with other browsers.User-duck (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]