Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 127–141 | Cite as

Commentaires sur le système de classification des angiospermes de takhtajan

  • Denis Barabé
  • Luc Brouillet
Article

Résumé

Les auteurs analysent le systeme de classification des Angiospermes de Takhtajan en fonction des principes de la systematique evolutive et de la systematique cladistique. Il est démontré que le systeme de Takhtajan appartient a l'école evolutive: cet auteur reconnait directement les ancêtres pour certains taxons; il accepte des embranchements polytomiques dans ses dendogrammes et, enfin, il réunit les taxons aussi bien sur la base de caractères évolués que primitifs. La notion de similarités pondérées de Takhtajan ne semble pas basée sur des criteres objectivs pour determiner le poids et le stade évolutif des caractères.

Après avoir resume les modifications apportées par Takhtajan dans la version de 1980, les auteurs font ressortir les faiblesses et les points forts des systemes evolutifs en general. Dans les systemes evolutifs, la delimitation des taxons et leur filiation sont difficilement réfutables puisqu'ils ne reposent pas sur des criteres precis qui assureraient une continuity et une uniformity a l'intérieur d'un même systeme. D'un autre côté, ces systemes possèdent une flexibility qui les rend aptes a incorporer des changements mineurs apportés par des travaux nouveaux, element qui fait malheureusement défaut a la systematique cladistique. En fait, tout en comportant des faiblesses au niveau théorique, le systeme de Takhtajan nous donne une vision de la phylogénie des plantes a fleur qui, pour le moment, demeure Tune des plus complete tant du point de vue analytique que synthétique.

Abstract

The authors analyze Takhtajan's system of classification of the Angiosperms in relation to the principles of evolutionary and cladistic systematics. It is shown that Takhtajan belongs to the evolutionary school: he identifies the ancestors of some taxa, he accepts polytomous branching and he groups taxa on the basis of primitive as well as derived character states. Takhtajan's notion of weighted similarity does not appear to be based on objective criteria, when determining the weight and evolutionary status of characters.

After a summary of the modifications brought out by Takhtajan in his 1980 version, the weak and strong points of evolutionary systems as a whole are emphasized. In these, the delimitation of taxa and their filiation are difficult to refute since they do not rely on precise criteria, which would ensure continuity and uniformity within a given system. However, these systems have some flexibility, which allows them to incorporate readily new information, a feature unfortunately missing in cladistic classifications. In fact, while it does have weaknesses from a theoretical point of view, the system of Takhtajan gives us an idea of flowering plants phylogeny that appears to be one of the most complete at the present time from both analytical and synthetic standpoints.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliographie

  1. Ashlock, P.D. (1979). An evolutionary systematist's view of classification. - Syst. Zool. 28, p. 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabé, D., Y. Bergeron & G.A. Vincent (1981). Relations phénétiques entre les familles d'Hamamelididae. - Experientia 37, p. 135–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, C.C. (1978). Cecropiaceae, a new family of the Urticales. - Taxon 27, p. 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessey, C.E. (1915). The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants. - Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 2, p. 109–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bremer K. & H.E. Wanntorp (1978). Phylogenetic systematics in botany. - Taxon 27, p. 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burger, W.C. (1977). The Piperales and the Monocots - Alternate hypotheses for the origin of monocotyledonous flowers. - Bot. Rev. 43, p. 345–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger, W.C. (1979). Cladistic: useful tool or rigid dogma? - Taxon 28, p. 385–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clifford, H.T. (1977). Quantitative studies of inter-relationships amongst the Liliatae. - Plant. Syst. Evol. Suppl.I, p. 77–95.Google Scholar
  9. Cracraft, J. (1974). Phylogenetic models and classification. - Syst. Zool. 23, p. 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cracraft, J. & N. Eldredge, eds. (1979). Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. - New York, Columbia University Press, 233 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Cronquist, A. (1968). The evolution and classification of flowering plants. — Riverside studies in biology, New York, 396 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Cronquist, A. (1977). The Compositae revisited. Brittonia 29, p. 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cronquist, A. (1978). The Zingiberidae, a new subclass of Liliopsida (Monocotyledons). - Brittonia 30, p. 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlgren, R. (1980). A revised system of classification of the Angiosperms. - Bot. J. Linn.Soc. 80, p. 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncan, T., R.B. Phillips & W.H. Wagner (1980). A comparison of branching diagrams derived by various phenetic and cladistic methods. - Syst. Bot. 5, p. 264–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Genermont, J. (1980). Trois conceptions modernes en taxinomie: taxinomie cladistique, taxinomie évolutive, taxinomie phénétique. - Ann. Biol. 19, p. 19–40.Google Scholar
  17. Gobi, C. (1916). A review of the system of plants. — Petrograd, (en Russe avec un résumé français).Google Scholar
  18. Gould, S.J. (1980). The promise of paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline. - Paleobiology 6, p. 96–118.Google Scholar
  19. Gould, S.J. (1981). What, if anything, is a Zebra? - Natural History 90, p. 6–12.Google Scholar
  20. Hallier, H. (1912). L'origine et le système phylétique des Angiospermes exposés à l'aide de leur arbre généalogique. - Arch. Néerl. Sci. Exact. Nat. Ser. 3, 1, p. 146–234.Google Scholar
  21. Hamann, V. (1976). Hydatellaceae — a new family of Monocotyledoneae. - New Zealand J. Bot. 14, p. 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hennig, W. (1965). Phylogenetic systematics. - Ann. Rev. Entom. 10, p. 95–116. Article traduit en français — In: D.Goulet et L.Matile, eds., Systématique cladistique. Quelques textes fondamentaux. Entretiens du Muséum, Paris, 1978. - Publication. du Laboratoire d'Entomologie générale et appliquée du Muséum, 106 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Translated by D.Davis and R. Zangerl. - Urbana, Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 263 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Hull, D.L. (1979). The limits of cladism. - Syst. Zool. 28, p. 416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janvier, P., P. Tassy & H. Thomas (1980). Le cladisme. - La Recherche 11, p. 1396–1406.Google Scholar
  26. Jong, R. de (1980). Some tools for evolutionary and phylogenetic studies. - Z.Zool. Syst. Evolut. -forsch. 18, p. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McNeill, J. (1979). Structural value: a concept used in the construction of taxonomic classifications. - Taxon 28, p. 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Melcalfe, C.R. & L. Chalk (1979). Anatomy of the Dicotyledons, 2nd eds., Vol. I. - Oxford, Clarendon Press, 276 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Parenti, L.R. (1980). A phylogenetic analysis of the land plants. - Biol. J.Linn. Soc. 13, p. 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Platnick, N.I. (1979). Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. - Syst. Zool. 28, p. 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sattler, R. & V. Singh (1978). Floral organogenesis of Echinodorous amazonicus Rataj and floral construction of the Alismatales. - Bot.J.Linn. Soc. 77, p. 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaeffer, B., M.K. Hecht & N. Eldredge (1972). Phylogeny and paleontology. - Evol. Biol. 6, p. 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smott, E.L., R.K. Jansen & T.N. Taylor (1981). A phylogenetic analysis of the land plants: a botanical commentary. - Taxon 30, p. 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, P.F. (1980). Evolutionary polarity of characters states. - Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11, p. 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Takhtajan, A.L. (1959). Die Evolution der Angiosperman. - Jena, Fischer, 344 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Takhtajan, A.L. (1966). Sistema i filogeniya Tsvetkovykh Rastenii (Système et phylogénie des plantes à fleurs). - Moskva, Izdatel'stvo ‘Nauka’, 611 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Takhtajan, A.L. (1969). Flowering plants. Origin and dispersal: Translated by C.Jeffrey. - Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, 310 pp.Google Scholar
  38. Takhtajan, A.L. (1973). Evolution and Ausbreitung der Blütenpflanzen. - Jena, Fischer, 189 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Takhtajan, A.L. (1980). Outline of the classification of flowering plants (Magnoliophyta). - Bot.Rev. 46, p. 225–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thorne, R.F. (1976). A phylogenetic classification of the Angiospermae. - Evol. Biol. 9, p. 35–106.Google Scholar
  41. Van Valen, L. (1978). Why not be a cladist? - Evol. Theor. 3, p. 285–299.Google Scholar
  42. Wanntorp, H.E. (1980). Theory and dogma in systematics. - Taxon 29, p. 688–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watrous, L.E. & Q.D. Wheeler (1980). The out-group comparison method of character analysis. - Syst.Zool. 30, p. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wernham, H.F. (1913). Floral evolution: with particular reference to the sympetalous dicotyledons. - New Phytol.11, p. 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiley, E.O. (1980a). Phylogenetic systematics and vicariance biogeography. - Syst. Bot. 5, p. 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiley, E.O. (1980b). Must phylogenetic classification be so complicated? - Syst. Zool. 29, p. 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Barabé
    • 1
  • Luc Brouillet
    • 2
  1. 1.Jardin botanique de MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Macdonald CollegeSte-Anne-de BellevueCanada

Personalised recommendations