How Botanists Classify Plants
Quick answer Plant classification has moved from easy but shallow artificial systems to natural and phylogenetic systems that use many kinds of evidence at once.
Plants are so varied that no single feature can sort all of them sensibly. Because of this, botanists have used several different kinds of classification one after another, and each new kind solved a problem that the earlier kind could not.
The earliest schemes were artificial systems. Linnaeus, for example, leaned mainly on vegetative characters together with the androecium, that is the arrangement of stamens. Such a system is easy to use, and that is exactly why it lasted so long. But it has two real weaknesses. First, it treats every character it uses as equally important, so a plant may be judged on a feature that says very little about its ancestry. Second, vegetative characters are strongly affected by the environment: the same species growing in shade and in full sun can look different enough to be filed in two separate boxes. The result is that close relatives get separated and unrelated plants get grouped together simply because they look alike.
Natural systems, such as the one worked out by Bentham and Hooker, were built on natural affinities instead. They still use external form, but they add internal evidence: anatomy, embryology, the fine structure of cells, and the chemicals a plant manufactures. Using several independent lines of evidence makes a wrong grouping much less likely, because an error in one line of evidence is usually contradicted by another.
Phylogenetic systems go one step further. They are based on evolutionary relationships, on the assumption that all the members of a group descend from a common ancestor. Fossils are the direct evidence here, but fossils of soft plant tissue are rare, so botanists supplement them with other data.
Three modern approaches feed into that work. Numerical taxonomy uses computers: every observable character is given a number and a code, hundreds of characters can be handled together, and each one can be given equal weight or a weight of its own. Cytotaxonomy uses cytological information such as chromosome number, chromosome structure and chromosome behaviour during cell division. Chemotaxonomy uses the chemical constituents of the plant to settle cases where structure alone is ambiguous.
In this chapter the plant kingdom is studied as five broad groups, and the order is not random. Algae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, gymnosperms and angiosperms form a sequence of increasing adaptation to life on land. Read the whole chapter as three problems being solved one after another: how to avoid drying out, how to conduct water and food inside a larger body, and how to reproduce without needing a film of outside water for the male gamete to swim through.
- Artificial systems, such as that of Linnaeus, used mainly vegetative characters and the androecium, and gave equal weight to characters of unequal importance.
- Vegetative characters change readily with the environment, so artificial systems often separate close relatives and unite unrelated plants.
- Natural systems, for example that of Bentham and Hooker, use natural affinities based on external form plus anatomy, embryology, cell ultrastructure and phytochemistry.
- Phylogenetic systems group plants by evolutionary relationship, assuming that members of a group share a common ancestor.
- Numerical taxonomy codes many characters numerically for computer analysis; cytotaxonomy uses chromosome data; chemotaxonomy uses chemical constituents.
- The five groups are studied in order of increasing land adaptation: algae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, angiosperms.
