Introduction
Dr. Robert F. Thorne last revised his system of angiosperm classification in 1992, departing significantly from his past views by greatly expanding the number of monocotyledonous families. His latest revision, the framework of which is presented here by permission, is presented in two part. The first part is a strict linear listing of names at the ranks of class through subfamily (tribe in Asteraceae). The second part is a more detailed listing in the sense that authorships are provided, but less inclusive as the lowest rank treated is that of family.
Unlike past submissions of Dr. Thorne's in print, this electronic version will be modified at a more frequent rate to reflect recent developments and his changing views. This will allow researchers interested in his system to keep up with his latest opinions. To assist him in the matter, I encourage individuals to submit comments to him. Even though Dr. Thorne is retired, he is still actively involved in the phylogeny of the flowering plants.
It has been my task for nearly two decades to keep members of the systematic community informed of the comparative evaluation of flowering plant systems. Online presently are the systems of Cronquist, Dahlgren, and Takhtajan as well as my own views which, like those of Dr. Thorne, are subject to change with newer data. My own system tends more towards that of Dr. Takhtajan in terms of the use of more numerous superorders, orders and families compared to Dr. Thorne. I differ from all of colleagues in dividing the flowering plants into five classes rather than the more traditional two (monocots and dicots). A concordance of family names is also available.
More information on vascular plant nomenclature and systems of classification is available on my web pages devoted to this subject.
Finally, in working with Drs. Takhtajan and Thorne over the past few years, I have attempted to provide them withup-to-date nomenclature and have urged that only validly published names be used. With this presentation, that has changed somewhat. While the nomenclature at the ranks of subclass, superorder, order and family is well in hand, that for suborder and subfamily is still subject to some change. I would appreciate receiving information correcting names at these two ranks with a copy of the original publication. Users will note some unfamiliar names here that Thorne has adopted because they have priority over others now in use.
James L. Reveal
