Talk:List of systems of plant taxonomy

Linnaeus'systems

Why is Linnaeus' system not considered a system? Gdr 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Linnaeus' system and Jussieu's system are a "sexual systems" not "early Natural" and "Natural" systems like others. Berton 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then should this page be titled list of natural systems of plant taxonomy? Gdr 16:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be instructive to include a reference to the original Linnaean system here, linked to a separate article about it, because it was the starting point of modern plant classification yet differs so radically from modern systems. MrDarwin 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy with the recent turn of events. I intended this as a means to unconfuse matters, not to complicate them.

Obviously there is such a thing as the history of Plant Systematics, starting with Theophrastus. Certainly there could be an entry on that. Anne Pavord just published a 471 page book on the topic, stopping before Linnaeus.

Linnaeus is another big topic. His main contribution was as the starting point of binomial nomenclature. His direct contributions to Plant taxonomy (and Systematics) are quite limited. I seem to recall there was a system by Linnaeus, as opposed to the Sexual System (in Species Plantarum) which is a filing system rather than a plant taxonomy system.

Well, there's the one in Classes Plantarum (18 classes: spataeci, glumosi, amentacei, etc). And there's the one he presents briefly in the front matter to Systema Naturae vol II: Monocotyledones (Palmae, Gramina, Lilia); Dicotyledones (Herbae, Arbores); Acotyledones (Filices, Musci, Algae, Fungi). Gdr 10:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly happy with the title as it is, that is as a listing of coherent systems of Plant Taxonomy. Whether such systems should be called "natural systems" or "phylogenetic systems" is an old issue and it is mostly a matter of politics and propaganda. One's own system is "natural" (or "phylogenetic") while those of the opponents are not.

In the meantime there are plenty of systems of Plant Taxonomy and it would be good to have a listing of at least the major ones.

All the pre-de Candolle material does not belong here, but elsewhere: I am looking to moving it out. Brya 09:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean to make a list of natural systems of plant taxonomy or a list of modern systems of plant taxonomy or a list of phylogenetic systems of plant taxonomy then you may want to use a different article title! Gdr 10:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should use a different title, but as taxonomy includes the naming of plant according to the rules of the ICBN all the pre-Linnaean material is excluded by this title. In that sense it is apt enough. Anyway the intro I wrote made it clear enough that this started with about de Candolle. Brya 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have a full listing of the Takhtajan system sitting on my disk somewhere, almost ready to be uploaded. Stan 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks like it might be a good idea (I am not sure if it is out on the web already), but as an entry Takhtajan System. Brya 09:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Brya, this is turning into more of a "history of plant classification systems" which I realize is not what you intended but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Any system of grouping and naming organisms can be called a "taxonomy" and there are widely accepted "folk taxonomies" for things like birds ("hawks") and mammals ("cats"), major groups of insects (butterflies, moths, flies) and common plants ("oaks" and "maples"), all of which are terms that predate the Linnaean binomial system. These systems, like Linnaeus' and the other early systems, are completely independent of the concepts of phylogeny and evolution but to a certain extent they work. I think there is value in mentioning the various systems, even the pre-phylogenetic ones, so they can be compared and contrasted, as long as it's kept brief and mostly as links to articles that can discuss the concepts more fully. This would certainly help place the more recent systems in context, as they have "evolved" from previous ones. MrDarwin 15:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying the value of anything, I just don't see why the objectives you mention should find a place here. Any taxonomic system is a point of view, which means any discussion of them needs great care. What I am trying to do here is make available a list of more or less comparable systems of plant taxonomy, without weighing it down with an extensive discussion on other matters. IIRC there already is an entry on folk taxonomy. An entry on the history of plant systematics is also a good idea, but please let it be separate. Brya 17:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Kubitzki system"?

No time right now, but there is an important series in progress, The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants edited by Kubitzki et al., that should probably be added even though the "system" itself is not yet complete. MrDarwin 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is until now 7 volumes: Vol. 1 Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms (1990), Vol. 2: Angiosperms: Magnoliid, Hamamelid and Caryophyllid Families (1993), Vol.3:Lilianae except Orchidaceae (1998),Vol. 4:Alismatanae to Commelinanae (except Gramineae)(1998), Vol.5: Capparales, Malvales and Non - betalain Caryophyllales, (2002) Vol. 6: Celastrales, Oxalidales, Rosales, Cornales, Ericales (2004) and Vol.7: Lamiales (except Acanthaceae including Avicenniaceae)(2004). Berton 12:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Differently of infamous APG-n System (that only knows to lump families), Kubitzki System deserves every respect! Berton 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally, something Berton and I can agree on! Unlike the APG classifications (which are basically just lists of names of families and higher taxa, leaving us to guess at where particular genera go), the Kubitzki volumes provide precise definitions, descriptions, and circumscriptions of orders, families and genera; moreoever, most treatments are written by specialists in those groups. MrDarwin 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, well writing! Berton 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Raunkiær system

"A system must be taxonomic, that is deal with a large number of plants, by their botanical names. Secondly it must be a system, i.e. deal with the relationships of plants." I think that the Raunkiær system fails both--isn't it one of the systems actually given as an example of a non-taxonomic system of plant categorization? KP Botany 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies: you're quite right. I'll be more careful next time. Clicketyclack 09:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

APG systems

Why are the three versions so far produced by the APG treated as three different systems in this list? Both the APG II and the APG III papers make clear that they are intended as revisions/improvements on the first APG system. There are more changes over time in, e.g., Thorne's "system", than in the 3 APG systems. I would like to move all three APG versions under one heading, but hesitate to start a long argument. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As no-one has dissented, I have grouped the 3 APG systems. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of systems of plant taxonomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/Botany/pdf/sctb-0058.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/Botany/pdf/scb-0071.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702041527/http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/systems/reve1.html to http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/systems/reve1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161225080234/http://www.sinauer.com/plant-systematics-a-phylogenetic-approach-817.html to http://www.sinauer.com/plant-systematics-a-phylogenetic-approach-817.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007100503/http://www.insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nom/~Rafinesque1815.htm to http://www.insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nom/~Rafinesque1815.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)