Large-scale nuclear and plastid phylogenomic analyses inform an updated Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification: APG V

Sep 20, 2026

Upload by Oliver

The review presents an updated Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG) classification driven by extensive recent analyses of hundreds of nuclear and plastid genes across many angiosperm species. It contrasts earlier APG versions relying mainly on uniparentally inherited plastid markers with new evidence since APG IV showing widespread hybridization and ancestral polymorphisms. Despite gene-tree discordance, most APG IV placements remain supported by both organellar and nuclear data, requiring only limited revisions. The update refines ordinal circumscription, recognizes new orders, adjusts restrictions of specific groups, and expands several family circumscriptions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages30

Reading Time1 h 16 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Classification goals and challenges

Review body (APG V update overview)

JSE Journal of Systematics and Evolution doi: 10.1111/jse.70096 Review Large‐scale nuclear and plastid phylogenomic analyses inform an updated Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classiﬁcation: APG V James W. Byng1 , Mark W. Chase2* , Maarten J. M. Christenhusz1,3 , Michael F. Fay2 , De‐Zhu Li4,5 , Hong Ma6 , David J. Mabberley7,8,9 , Douglas E. Soltis10,11,12,13 , Pamela S. Soltis11,12,13 , Peter F. Stevens14, William J. Baker2,15 , Steven Dodsworth3 , Félix Forest2 , Olivier Maurin2,16,17 , Lisa Pokorny18 , Stephen A. Smith19 , and Alexandre R. Zuntini2 1Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Hortus Botanicus, University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands 2Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond TW9 3AE, UK 3Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology, School of Natural Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London WC1E 7HX, UK 4Center for Interdisciplinary Biodiversity Research and College of Forestry, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai′an 271018, China 5Germplasm Bank of Wild Species and Yunnan Key Laboratory of Crop Wild Relative Omics, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China 6Department of Biology, Eberly College of Science and Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA 16802, USA 7Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 8School of Natural Resources, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 9Australian Institute of Botanical Science (National Herbarium of New South Wales), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 10Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 11Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 12Genetics Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 13Biodiversity Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA 14Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St Louis, MO 63166‐0299, USA 15Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark 16Meise Botanic Garden, Meise 1860, Belgium 17 Fédération Wallonie‐Bruxelles, Service Général de l′ Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche scientiﬁque, Bruxelles 1080, Belgium 18Real Jardín Botánico (RJB‐CSIC), Madrid 28014, Spain 19Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 830 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐1048, USA *Author for [correspondence. E‐mail: m.chase@kew.org](correspondence. E‐mail: m.chase@kew.org) Received 11 December 2025; Accepted 4 June 2026 Abstract We present here a revision of the APG classiﬁcation that considers the extensive recent analyses of hundreds of nuclear and plastid genes for many angiosperm species. Although previous versions of the APG classiﬁcation were largely based on uniparentally inherited markers (plastid DNA, typically maternally inherited), there has emerged since APG IV extensive evidence of widespread hybridization and inheritance of ancestral polymorphisms. Despite this evidence of gene‐tree discordance, most of the APG IV classiﬁcation is supported by both plastid and nuclear analyses, and only a few revisions are required in this update to make the classiﬁcation parallel phylogenetic results in the literature. At the ordinal level, few changes in circumscription are required relative to the last APG version, although the fabids now comprise only the four nitrogen‐ﬁxing orders (Cucurbitales, Fabales, Fagales, and Rosales) and the malvids now include the former COM clade (Celastrales, Malpighiales, and Oxalidales), which, in nuclear DNA analyses, is no longer monophyletic. Oncothecales (with only Oncothecaceae) and Cardiopteridales (with Cardiopteridaceae and Stemonuraceae) are newly recognized, and Icacinales are restricted to Icacinaceae. Restriction of Aquifoliales and Bruniales to just Aquifoliaceae/ Helwingiaceae and Bruniaceae, respectively, is also proposed. Huaceae and Columelliaceae are unplaced to order among the m

FAQs

What drives the APG V revision described in the paper?

Large-scale phylogenomic analyses using hundreds of nuclear and plastid genes across many angiosperm species drive the update, incorporating evidence of hybridization and inheritance of ancestral polymorphisms.

How is gene-tree discordance handled in the classification update?

Although evidence of gene-tree discordance exists, most of the APG IV classification is still supported by both plastid and nuclear analyses, so only limited revisions are required.

What kinds of taxonomic changes occur at the ordinal and family levels?

At the ordinal level, circumscription is adjusted and some orders are newly recognized or restricted, while family-level circumscriptions are expanded and certain placements are revised or remain provisional.

Sep 20, 2026

Upload by Oliver