CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Apium

genus of plants

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 20, 2025
Entity authorityQ2284228
Source-derived summary

Apium is a genus, as currently circumscribed by Plants of the World Online, of 12 species of flowering plants in the family Apiaceae, with an unusual highly disjunct distribution with one species in the temperate Northern Hemisphere in the Western Palaearctic (Europe, western Asia, north Africa), and the rest in the temperate Southern Hemisphere in southern Africa, southern South America, Australia, and New Zealand. They are prostrate to medium-tall annual, biennial or perennial herbs growing up to 1 m high in wet soil, often marshes and salt marshes, and have pinnate to bipinnate leaves and small white flowers in compound umbels. Some species are edible, notably Apium graveolens, which is the wild ancestor of the commercially important vegetables celery, celeriac and leaf celery.

The genus is the type genus of the family Apiaceae and the order Apiales; the type species of the genus is Apium graveolens.

Species

As of September 2024, Plants of the World Online accepts the following species:

Western Palaearctic

Apium graveolens L. - wild celery

Australia

Apium annuum P.S.Short

Apium insulare P.S.Short - Flinder's Island celery

Apium prostratum Labill. ex Vent. (also in New Zealand, southern Africa, and southern South America) - sea celery

New Zealand

Apium prostratum Labill. ex Vent. (also in Australia, southern Africa, and southern South America) - sea celery

Southern Africa

Apium prostratum Labill. ex Vent.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Apium” as genus of plants. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical orientation to terminology and classification, particularly when read beside dated observations, specimens or technical literature. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2024—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Apium, genus and plants can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as genus of plants. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 20, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q2284228. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2024.

Critical limits

A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Apium”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Apium primary sources, Apium archive and Apium research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Apium”?
  2. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Apium” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.