© 2006 Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust ISSN0312–9764 Telopea 11(3) 314–344 A new suprageneric classification of the Proteaceae, with an annotated checklist of genera Peter H. Weston 1 and Nigel P. Barker 2 1 National Herbarium of New South Wales, Botanic Gardens Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia 2 Department of Botany, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa Abstract A new suprageneric classification of the Proteaceae is presented that takes account of available molecular systematic results, synthesised as a phylogenetic supertree. Subfamilial, tribal and subtribal names are recircumscribed or created, where necessary, to ensure the putative monophyly of named higher taxa. Subfamilies, tribes and subtribes are briefly described. One new subfamily, Symphionematoideae, two new tribes, Petrophileae, Leucadendreae, and four new subtribes, Leucadendreae subtribe Isopogoninae, Leucadendreae subtribe Leucadendrinae, Macadamieae subtribe Malagasiinae and Macadamieae subtribe Virotiinae are named. Information is provided on the number of species currently recognised in, and distribution of, each genus, and the most recent generic taxonomic treatments are cited. Challenges to the monophyly of some genera are briefly discussed. Introduction The most recent, complete suprageneric classification of the Proteaceae was published over thirty years ago, as part of a highly influential monograph on the evolution and biogeography of the family (Johnson & Briggs 1975). The phylogenetic analysis that this classification reflected was based primarily on morphological, anatomical and cytological characters, as well as a few micromolecular attributes (such as the ability to accumulate aluminium in the leaves) and biotic associations (pollinators). Johnson and Briggs described their analytical procedure as ‘admittedly less “repeatable” or formally “objective”’ than ‘cladistic taximetric approaches’ but ‘no less likely to represent the truth’ (Johnson & Briggs 1975: 98). Their philosophical approach to classification is more accurately described as ‘gradistic’ than ‘cladistic’: ‘grades, when sufficiently well characterised and presumably monophyletic, are recognised as taxa, and the practical impossibility as well as the theoretical difficulties of pure cladism are acknowledged’ (Johnson & Briggs 1975: 88).