This is an assertion pair about artificial systems of classification, the older schemes that sorted plants using just one or two easily visible traits like habit or the number of stamens.
- Statement 1, artificial systems were incomplete and fragmentary: Because these systems used only a few superficial characters and ignored internal structure, reproduction, and evolutionary history, they gave an incomplete and patchy picture of a plant's true relationships. This statement holds up.
- Statement 2, artificial systems always show interrelationships among plants: The entire point of a natural or phylogenetic system is to reveal how plants are related through evolution. An artificial system, by contrast, groups plants that merely look alike in one or two features, even if they are not related at all. So claiming it always shows interrelationships is false.
Statement 1 correctly criticizes artificial systems as incomplete, while statement 2 wrongly credits them with something only natural or phylogenetic systems attempt to do. So statement 1 is true and statement 2 is false.
Let's summarize:
- Artificial systems: based on a few visible traits, incomplete picture, statement 1 is true.
- Showing true evolutionary interrelationships is the job of natural or phylogenetic systems, not artificial ones, so statement 2 is false.
So the correct choice is that statement 1 is true and statement 2 is false.