1

Systems of Classification of Plants

Classification: Classification is defined as the ordering or ranking of organisms into groups on the basis of similarities
or closeness or relationships.

Types of classification:
A. Artificial
B. Natural
C. Phylogenetic

Artificial Classification: This system of classification is based on only one or two superficial characters without
considering any morphological details or phylogenetic relationships.

Natural Classification: This system of classification is based on all natural characters, i.e. the external morphology of
the plants.

Phylogenetic Classification: This system of classification is based not only on the morphological characters but the
evolutionary trends and genetic relationships are considered as well.

Theophrastus to Linnaeus : Theophrastus (370-285 B.C.)

➢ Known as the father of Botany
➢ He was a pupil of Plato and friend of Aristotle .He classified plants on the basis of form and texture.
➢ In his „Historia Plantarum’ he had classified and described about 450 cultivated plants as:
a. herbs (primitive)
b. under-shrubs
c. Shrubs
d. Trees (highest evolved )
➢ He also distinguished between annual, biennial and perennial plants.
➢ He also noted the difference between centripetal and centrifugal inflorescences.His classification was strictly
artificial.

Theophrastus to Linnaeus : Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)

➢ A great Swedish botanist
➢ Known as the father of modern Botany
➢ He introduced the binomial system of nomenclature
➢ A plant‟s class was determined by its stamens (basis of number, cohesion, length, etc.), and its order by its pistils
(Number, nature, etc.).
➢ His system of classification is known as Sexual system.
➢ The outline of the classes of his system was published in his „Systema Naturae’ in 1735, again in „Genera
Plantarum’ in 1737, and finally in „Species Plantarum‟ in 1753.
➢ His system of classification is an artificial system.

Sexual System of Classification

Merits of Linnaeus’s System of Classification:

1. It aids in the quick and easy identification by means of one or a few characters.
2. It is best artificial system of classification in plants.
3. He introduced the binomial nomenclature which is being followed till today.
4. He considered reproductive characters which are more stable than the vegetative characters.
5. He provided description of 1000 genera and 6000 species.

Demerits of Linnaeus’s System of Classification:

 2
1. Since this system is based on differences rather than on similarities of the sex organs, very often closely related
plants have been placed in widely separated groups, while those quite different from each other have been placed in
the same group.
2. Affinities and relationships among the taxa have not been considered.
3. There is no distinction between the Dicotyledones and Monocotyledones and have been mixed up and put together.
4. The placement of Gymnosperms in the Class 14 (Didynamia) along with the angiosperm family Labiatae is most
unsatisfactory.

From Linnaeus to Hutchinson : John Hutchinson (1884-1972)

➢ An English botanist
➢ His classification of angiosperms was published in „Families of Flowering Plants‟.
➢ Formerly this work was published twice in 1926 and 1934.
➢ Hutchinson‟s classification is more closely related to that of Bentham and Hooker’s and Bessey’s ssystems of
classification than that of Engler and Prantl‟s system.
➢ This is a phylogenetic system of classification.
➢ According to Hutchinson, the primitive polypetalous forms have been diverged from the very beginning along two
separate lines:
➢ One of the lines still retains the arboreal habit (Magnoliales)
➢ The other one has adopted the herbaceous habit. (Ranales)

Hutchinson’s system of classification

▪ Hutchinson has divided the seed plants into two phyla:

a. Gymnospermae
b. Angiospermae
▪ The phylum Angiospermae has been further divided into two sub-phyla:
a. Dicotyledones
b. Monocotyledones.
▪ The sub-phylum Dicotyledones has been divided into two divisions: Herbaceae , Lignosae.
▪ The sub-phylum Monocotyledones has been divided into three groups: Calyciferae , Corolliferae , Glumiflorae.

Merits:
1. This system is a phylogenetic system of classification and has stimulated phyletic rethinking to a greater extent
2. This system considers that the primitive orders are Magnoliales representing arborescent families, and Ranales
representing herbaceous families, giving rise to woody and herbaceous forms respectively on parallel lines.
3. Bisexual and polypetalous flowers precede unisexual and gamopetalous flowers.
4. Amentiferae(catkin-bearing families with unisexual, apetalous flowers) is regarded as advanced and thus transferred
to a new phyletic position close to Rosales and Leguminales; their apparent simplicity represents reduction and
specialization (and not primitiveness).
5. Casuarinaceae has been assigned an advanced position and placed at the top of the Amentiferae.
6. Many families have been raised to the rank of orders, e.g., Leguminosae to Leguminales.
7. It supports the origin of monocotyledons from dicotyledons at an early stage of evolution, the point of origin being
the Ranales.
8. It has reshuffled the genera of Liliaceae and Amaryllidaceae on the basis of inflorescence characters.
9. It has rearranged several orders, finally ending in Cyperales and Graminales.

De-merits:
1. Many taxonomists do not agree with his rigid bifurcation of dicotyledons into Lignosae (woody plants) and
Herbaceae (herbaceous types).
2. Many taxonomists hold different views regarding the relationship between various orders and families.
3. Monophyletic view regarding the origin of angiosperms is not universally accepted.
4. Monophyletic origin of Monocotyledons from the Ranales is against the polyphyletic (diphyletic) views of Lotsty
(1911) and Hallier (1912).
5. Urticales, Umbellales, Euphorbiales, etc., has not originated from different ancestors.
 3

Arthur Cronquist
➢ Arthur Cronquist was the Senior Curator of New York Botanic Garden and Adjunct Professor of Columbia
University.
➢ He presented an elaborate interpretation of his concept of classification in „The Evolution and Classification of
Flowering Plants’ (1968).
➢ The further edition of his classification was published in „An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering
Plants’ (1981).
➢ The latest revision was published in the 2nd edition in 1988 in „The Evolution and Classification of Flowering
Plants’.
➢ His system is parallel to that of Takhtajan‟s system in so many respects.
➢ This is a phylogenetic system of classification.

Cronquist’s system of classification

He divided the angiosperms in two classes:

Class: Magnoliopsida (Dicotyledons)
▪ Sub-class: Magnoliidae
▪ Sub-class: Hamamelidae
▪ Sub-class: Caryophyllidae
▪ Sub-class: Dilleniidae
▪ Sub-class: Rosidae
▪ Sub-class: Asteridae

Class: Liliopsida (Monocotyledons)

▪ Sub-class: Alismatidae
▪ Sub-class: Arecidae
▪ Sub-class: Commelinidae
▪ Sub-class: Zingiberidae
▪ Sub-class: Lilidae

Cronquist’s Phylogram
▪ Cronquist had given a phylogram that depicts the evolutionary relationships between the various sub-classes in form
of a bubble diagram.
▪ Seed ferns were considered as the probable ancestor of angiosperms. He suggested Nympheales as the probable
ancestor of monocots.
▪ Magnoliidae was considered as the basal complex for the dicots and the remaining 5 sub-classes were believed to
have evolved from it separately.
▪ Hamamelidae consists of mostly apetalous flowers which forms the traditional Amentiferae.
▪ The Caryophyllidae and Dilleniidae were originated from Magnoliidae in one direction while Asteridae was derived
from Rosidae which again evolved from the basal complex.
▪ For the monocots, Alismatidae forms a basal stalk from which the other sub-classes evolved.

Cronquist’s system of classification

Merits:
1. There is general agreement of Cronquist‟s system with that of other contemporary systems like Takhtajan. Dahlgren
and Thorne.
2. Detailed information on anatomy, ultra structure phytochemistry and chromosome morphology was presented in
the revision of the classification in 1981 and 1988
3. The system is highly phylogenetic.
4. Nomenclature is in accordance with the ICBN.
 4
5. The family Asteraceae in Dicotyledons and Orchidaceae in Monocotyledons are generally regarded as advanced
and are rightly placed towards the end of respective groups.
6. The relationships of different groups have been described with bubble diagrams which provide valuable information
on relative advancement and size of the various subclasses.
7. The family Winteraceae (vessel-less wood present similar to Pteridosperms) placed at the beginning of dicotyledons
is favoured by many authors.
8. The subclass Magnoliidae is considered as the most primitive group of Dicotyledons. The placement of
Dicotyledons before Monocotyledons finds general agreements with modem authors
9. As the text is in English, the system has been readily adopted in different books.

De-merits:
1. Though highly phylogenetic and popular in U.S.A., this system is not very useful for identification and adoption in
Herbaria since Indented keys for genera are not provided.
2. Dahlgren (1983, 89) and Thorne (1980, 83) treated angiosperms in the rank of a class and not that of a division.
3. Superorder as a rank above order has not been recognised here
4. The subclass Asteridae represents a loose assemblage of several diverse sympetalous groups.
5. Ehrendorfer (1983) pointed out that the subclass Hamamelidae does not represent an ancient side branch of the
subclass Magnoliidae, but is remnant of a transition from Magnoliidae to Dilleniidae, Rosidae, and Asteridae.
6. There is a difference in opinion with other authors regarding the systematic position of some orders like Typhales,
Arales. Urticales etc.

Armen Takhtajan (1910 – 2009)

An academician of V. L. Komarov Academy of Botanical Sciences, Leningrad, Russia
✓ He presented a system of classification of angiosperms for the first time in 1942, and thereafter its revised versions
in 1954, 1966, 1969, 1980 and 1997 respectively.
✓ Takhtajan‟s approach is quite similar to that of Cronquist.
✓ The Final version of his classification was published in Diversity and Classification of Flowering Plants (1997).
✓ According to him the angiosperms are of monophyletic origin and evolved from some ancient group of
gymnosperms.

The evolutionary tendencies followed by Takhtajan are as follows:

▪ Woody plants precede herbaceous plants.
▪ Evergreen trees precede deciduous woody plants.
▪ Simple pinnately-nerved leaves precede pinnately lobed, pinnatifid and pinnatisect leaves with pinnate venation.
▪ Simple leaves precede compound leaves.
▪ Pinnate venation precedes palmate venation. Reticulate venation precedes parallel venation.
▪ Alternate leaf arrangement precedes opposite and verticillaster arrangements.
▪ Stomata with subsidiary cells are primitive and without subsidiary cells are advanced.
▪ Tripentalacunar type of nodal structure is primitive, and unilacunar type is advanced.
▪ Cymose inflorescence is primitive, and racemose is derived one.
▪ Primitive flowers are spiral whereas advanced are cyclic in arrangement of their floral organs.
▪ The primitive stamens were leaf-like, and with marginally situated microsporangia.
▪ The pollen is derived from monocolpate to tricolpate and from tricolpate to triporate. The exine of primitive pollen
was without external sculpturing whereas in advanced pollen there was sculpturing of various types.
▪ Apocarpy precedes syncarpy.
▪ Bitegmic ovules are primitive, whereas unitegmic are advanced.
▪ Polygonum-type of embryo sac is primitive, the other types are derived from it.
▪ Endospermic seeds are primitive, whereas non-endospermic seeds are advanced. The monocot embryo is evolved
from dicot embryo.
▪ Many seeded follicle is most primitive type of fruit, from this other types are evolved.
▪ He divided plant kingdom into 9 divisions, in which the 9th division was ansgiosperms (Magnoliophyta).
 5
▪ He divided the division Magnoliophyta in two classes:
a. Magnoliopsida (Dicotyledons)
b. Liliopsida (Monocotyledons)

Division: Magnoliophyta
Class I: Magnoliopsida (Dicotyledons)
▪ Sub-class 1:Magnoliidae
▪ Sub-class 2: Nymphaeidae
▪ Sub-class 3: Nelumbonidae
▪ Sub-class 4: Ranunculidae
▪ Sub-class 5:Caryophyllidae
▪ Sub-class 6: Hamamelididae
▪ Sub-class 7:Dilleniidae
▪ Sub-class 8: Rosidae
▪ Sub-class 9:Cornidae
▪ Sub-class 10:Asteridae
▪ Sub-class 11: Lamiidae

Division: Magnoliophyta
Class II: Liliopsida (Monocotyledons)
▪ Sub-class 1:Lilidae
▪ Sub-class 2: Commelinidae
▪ Sub-class 3: Arecidae
▪ Sub-class 4: Alismatidae
▪ Sub-class 5: Triurididae
▪ Sub-class 6: Aridae

Takhtajan’s system of classification

Merits
1. The classification of Takhtajan is more phylogenetic than that of earlier systems.
2. This classification is in a general agreement with the major contemporary systems of Cronquist, Dahlgren, Thorne,
and others.
3. Nomenclature adopted in this system is in accordance with the ICBN, even at the level of division.
4. The treatment of Magnolidae as a primitive group and the placement of Dicotyledons before Monocotyledons are
in agreement with the other contemporary systems.
5. The concept of primitive flower in the classification is in accordance with modern taxonomists
6. The introduction of the rank of “super order” in the classification has provided an important link between the large
„subclass‟ and the smaller„order”.

Demerits
1. In this system, more weightage is given to cladistic information in comparison to phenetic information.
2. This system provides classification only upto the family level, thus it is not suitable for identification and adoption
in herbaria.
3. Takhtajan recognised angiosperms as division which actually deserve a class rank like that of the systems of
Dahlgren (1983) and Thorne (2003).
4. Numerous monotypic families have been created in 1997 due to the further splitting and increase in number of
families to 592 (533 in 1987), resulting into a very narrow circumscription.
5. Takhtajan incorrectly suggested that smaller families are more „natural‟.
6. Although the families Winteraceae and Cancellaceae showed 99 to 100% relationship by multigene analyses,
Takhtajan placed these two families in two separate orders.