Talk:Carl Linnaeus/Archive 2

Motto
There are two mentions of Linnaeus' motto in the text:

"Linnaeus' motto in microtext, which reads OMNIA MIRARI ETIAM TRITISSIMA (Find wonder in all things, even the most common place)." "his personal motto, "Innocue vivito, numen adest", Live righteously- the deity is present."

Did he use both? Does "personal motto" imply 'not public'? Was the motto used in the currency one that he used in his books? -- Limulus (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any source for a motto at all. Can you provide a source? Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 09:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have to research that; for now I just added fact tags to motto mentions to flag them as needing work. -- Limulus (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On the base of some 'research' at Google Books it appears that the "Innocue vivito..."-phrase has a valid claim to be called Linné's personal motto. The other text was apparently taken from his Philosophia botanica and is (sometimes? often?) quoted as a sort of Linnaean "guiding principle", which falls within the definition of "motto". I agree that the current wording is somewhat ambiguous. Perhaps it could be adjusted to reflect this difference more clearly. Iblardi (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is very helpful! -- Limulus (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ennoblement
Article currently has the section "Rector of Uppsala University". I had split out the end part as "Ennoblement". Esuzu asks: "Ennoblement section is nowhere near big enough, the title could be Rector of Uppsala University and ennoblement?" Just FYI, my thinking was that after I find a good source that details all the heraldic symbolism in Linnaeus' coat of arms, that section would be large enough to support the image on its own. I was also wondering if the Hammarby/Garden and Museum part should eventually be split off too. -- Limulus (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you want to do I think but I am not sure if that info is relevant to the biography really (perhaps somewhere else in the article but it depends on what info you'll get, in all the books I have read the ennoblement and coat of arms is mentioned rather wuickly and problably not too important). I am in the process of expanding the biography part now so much will be added, if you look a "Early life" part it is divided into subsections. It is my intention that all sections shall be devided like that in the future. Then ennoblement might be sufficient to be its own subsection. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Broberg
One of the books I found via my local library system was a short publication by Gunnar Broberg, "Professor of the History of Science and Ideas at Lund University" and the Swedish Institute. I took some notes while reading through it and will include them here such that they can be incorporated into the text.

Page 7:

The Latin ending of his surname indicates academic status, without which he would have been called Carl Nilsson, after his father. (On one occasion Linnaeus styled himself Carl Nelin, a cryptonym of Carl N/ilsson/ Linné. That was in a prize competition, which he failed to win even though the alias probably deceived no-one.)


 * Everything without Nelin is in the article already. The Nelin part could be incorporated into the Footnotes that already exists I guess. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought the Nelin mention was an interesting bit of trivia; quoted the rest so that it was in context. -- Limulus (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, hard to see what you intend since you only quote :) Well I find the Nelin mention quite interesting too so go ahead. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Linnaeus has been called Princeps botanicorum, the Prince of Botanists, "The Pliny of the North", "The Second Adam" and other names besides.


 * "Princeps botanicorum" is stuff for the lead I think :) Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! -- Limulus (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Page 9:

The saga of Linnaeus is one of the highlights of Sweden's national mythology.


 * Not sure this has much to do in the article unless you want to quote Broberg. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically wanted to point it out as a secondary source talking about how important Linnaeus is to Swedish history. None of these need to be incorporated, but they can be :) -- Limulus (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, it's just that it sounds very very silly to me, being a Swede. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Page 10:

[Linnaeus] had three sisters and a brother, Samuel, who was to succeed their father as vicar of Stenbrohult in Småland. Samuel is known as the author of a work on bee-keeping

[Rothman] told the worried parents that their first-born should abandon theology for medicine. This is indeed what happened, but the parental anxiety was understandable. Medical posts in Sweden were extremely few in number, whereas theologians had a guaranteed job market. Then again, they had heard rumours about the godlessness of medical science, for after all, it was the physicians who, a generation or so earlier, had imported the seditious doctrines of Descartes to the universities.

(RE "godlessness" yes it really says that! -- Limulus (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
 * You don't think what the article already says about what Rothman said is sufficient? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was rather shocked by that comment about the "godlessness of medical science" Also thought the "guaranteed job" comment was interesting. -- Limulus (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Work part is probably more relevant. If it can be incorporated nicely I have nothing against it. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Page 14 (continued on 16):

Linnaeus prepared for his professional début, but to qualify for a doctorate in medicine he had to travel abroad. Since the second half of the 17th century, it had become customary for Swedes to travel to Holland for their doctoral disputations. The country had thus become an important influence on Swedish intellectual life. [...] The Netherlands were also a much more suitable place for publishing works of scholarship.
 * Shorter version already in the article as: "At that time Holland was one of the most revered places to study natural history so Linnaeus accepted."
 * I found it interesting that "it had become customary for Swedes to travel to Holland for their doctoral disputations" -- Limulus (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Page 17:

It was in the Netherlands, then, that Linnaeus made a name for himself and, after a couple of detours to France and England, one feels he might well have settled in Europe for good, but in 1738 he returned home to Sweden, never again to venture into the great wide world.

Page 17 (continued on 18):

Quite often, in fact, [Linnaeus] referred to his system [of classification in Systema Naturae] as a kind of military mapping: Nature, like society, consisted of kingdoms, provinces, districts and individual smallholdings from which the soldier was collected. Linnaeus having grown up during the great wars, the analogy came naturally. Not that he was an adherent of the old political system which had now been toppled, but he was almost obsessed with lucidity and order. On one occasion he appointed himself general of Flora's army, an apt title in spite of that goddess's peaceful attributes.

(I will continue typing up my notes in a little bit -- Limulus (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Starting now at the back of the book, on what would be Page 44 if it were numbered, is a "chronology in brief" Scanning the article, some items that pop up:

1734 Travels in Dalarna

Some items from Page 29:

[Journey to Lapland] In five months he had covered over 2,000 km.

His journey to Dalarna, in 1734, was commissioned by the Governor of that province in Falun and had the economic purpose of identifying common assets in the country at large as well as unknown natural resources and, for example, collecting intelligence about Norwegian mining activities at Röros. This time Linnaeus headed a small group of students who assisted him and at the same time received instruction from their young leader.

-- Limulus (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1735-1738 Travels to Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, England and France

I note that we use the term Holland, but that's ambiguous ("For the country of the Netherlands as a whole, see Netherlands.") and not completely accurate, since Harderwijk is not in the western part of the Netherlands associated with the name "Holland". I am going to rename that section in a moment to something more accurate. I also find it interesting that Linnaeus spent so little time outside of Sweden; I am going to note that in the image caption. Also, on P. 16 it says "Artedi [...] drowned one dark evening in an Amsterdam canal." I will incorporate the fact that Wikipedia has an article: Canals of Amsterdam. We don't have anything about France; we should at least have a brief mention of why+when he was there.
 * The thing about him drowned is not necessary but I don't have anything against it. However, we do not need the wikilinks. Beware of overlinking Limulus :), for example things like all people know what it is ("drowned" to take an example) does not need to be wikilinked. Also, just because wikipedia has a article on something doesn't mean we need to wikilink to it. It should be relevant to the topic.
 * And about france: I am working on that. Have some things left that aren't in the biography yet. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1744 Secretary of the Uppsala Scientific Society

-- Limulus (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty irrelevant, he was a member in like all of Europe's Scientific Society (also none of the books I have read mention it). Royal Swedish Academy of Science is in the article because he helped create it. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A few issues
These are a few issues I have noticed while copyediting this article. Though I was able to address some of them, others I was not able to, I would like outside input on, or I simply missed all instances. I wish to make other editors of this article aware of and on the lookout:
 * According to this talk page, the article is written in British English. I noted and fixed many instances of non-British English being used; i.e., the use of "traveled" as opposed to "travelled", "honors" v. "honours", and a few dates formatted M DD, YYYY rather than the standard DD M YYYY, &c. There might be a few instances of this that I did not catch.
 * Thank you, the article has not been copyedited very much yet. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the word choice, in my opinion, is a bit too casual for encyclopaedic use. I would not go so far as to call them slang, but I have qualms about the use statements such as "Linnaeus got most of his higher education at Uppsala University" (in the lead section, no less)
 * The lead needs to be rewritten. But I am not doing that until the rest of the article is rewritten. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The gallery at the end of the article
 * Will be removed when the article has been rewritten. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The cited source for the account at the end of the second paragraph, in the #Childhood section (about his father not teaching him any more names) implies that it is most likely a fabrication but it is treated in the article as a fact
 * I've been having doubts about that part aswell and will try to rewrite it or remove it. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the "See also" do not seem particularly relevant. For example, there are probably scores, if not hundreds or more, of taxa named for Linnaeus. How are Nepenthes or Solanum linnaeanum special?
 * I have not been working on that either yet. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to address these and other issues in the next few days.  Intelligent  sium  02:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All in all, the only section that I have worked on is the Biography section. The rest of the sections needs to be rewritten (and will be). That is why there are so many errors etc in them. Thus, it is probably point to copyedit those parts that haven't been rewritten yet. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Roslin's portrait
The original of the Roslin painting does not have the signature in the corner. It is a very good portrait but it would be nice if an unmanipulated photograph could be found. --Hegvald (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong, the original has the signature. Why do you think it hasn't? AlphaZeta (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you think that the original has the signature? This portrait has been published many times, most recently in colour over a whole page in Nationalmuseum's exhibition catalogue Alexander Roslin (2007), p. 242. And no, the painting as depicted there does not have the signature in the corner. The image on Commons is most likely a photoshopped image of the original, probably downloaded from somewhere on the internet. --Hegvald (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look here at the original at the official web page, it has the signature. Maybe it is some other version of the painting in the catalouge? Gustaf Sandberg have for example made a copy of it. Otherwise I would say Nationalmuseum has photoshoped it and removed the signature.AlphaZeta (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The NM photoshopping images for an official exhibition catalogue? ;-) No, in that case this is obviously a real painting but probably a copy of Roslin's original. Give me a few days, and I will check. --Hegvald (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Having checked Tycho Tullberg's Linnéporträtt (1907), I realize that the situation is more complicated than I thought. Until I corrected it, the caption in the box misleadingly stated that this was the portrait belonging to the Academy of Science. The Academy portrait was the one displayed in Nationalmuseum's Roslin exhibition and published in the catalogue. It does not have "Linné" in the upper right corner.

You are right, however, that this is an original Roslin painting. Roslin made two copies of the same portrait. This is the other one, which hangs at Gripsholm. The Gripsholm painting is the only one of the two with "Linné" in the corner. --Hegvald (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I learned something new:) AlphaZeta (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Two gallery images
Two gallery images were removed some time ago in what that user called a "clean-up". I restored them today because I find them relevant and interesting, if there is to be a gallery at all. Someone had removed the college from one of the captions, making that image less relevant and interesing. I am restoring that now. The other image is extraordinarily entertaining in my opinion, and as relevant as apples to Linnaeus. The tribute is touching in that design. Should we remove relevant and interesting material just because it also is entertaining? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction: last year of Lower School
I believe this contains an internal error:

"Nevertheless Linnaeus managed to reach the last year of the Lower School when he was fifteen, in 1717."

If he was born in 1707, he was ten in 1717. Or he reached the last year of grammar school in 1722.

Thanks for resolving this, Linneaus scholars!

Cynthia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.230.153 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed something is wrong. Placing a contradiction template... Top.Squark (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As per ("Originally published in The Linnean 9(3): 10-11. 1993.") "in 1717 he was sent to school in Växjö" -- Limulus (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I hunted through the edit history and it turns out that half a year ago Esuzu made a change from this:


 * "In 1717 he was sent to the primary school at the city Växjö, and in 1724 he passed to the gymnasium there"


 * to this:


 * "Nevertheless Linnaeus succeeded in reaching the last year of the Lower School when he was fifteen, 1717."


 * Seems like the edit intended to change or delete the year, but forgot to. As 1717 seems to be the start year, I will rv to that. Limulus (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This section is using both years and age, so I moved 1717 back a sentence so it would make sense. Here is the change that I just made:


 * "Two years after his tutoring had begun, in 1717, he was instead sent to the Lower Grammar School at Växjö. Linnaeus rarely studied, instead he often went to the countryside to look for plants. Nevertheless Linnaeus managed to reach the last year of the Lower School when he was fifteen."


 * Thx for clearing this up! Top.Squark (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

æ
As I demonstrated above (section "Name confusion?"), Linnæus spelled his own name with the æ ligature and not with ae, so Linnæus was his (and his father's) original name. This should be acknowledged in the article. If nobody minds, I will correct the ae to æ in this article where this is appropriate, when I will find some time to do this. --FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you did not find the time so far, and I am happy about it. For you and others who might think it necessary to replace all instances of "ae" with a ligature: please don't do it: the ligature is just another typography of the two separate characters and only makes it very difficult to cite the name, whereas everyone is able to type "ae" on a keyboard. - Wikiklaas (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Expedition to Lapland geography problem
I am not an expert on Linnaeus, I just live in Sweden and noted something very strange in the section Expedition to Lapland. It says he traveled to Umeå, it took 11 days, then he visited Gävle and then continued to Lycksele. That is very strange because Gävle is the city north of Uppsala, the city I assume he started from and probably returned to after his Expedition to Lapland. Why would he travel northwards for 11 days, then back southwards for 10 days, then northwards again for 10 days to Umeå and then continue for 5 days northwest to Lycksele and then further north etc..?

He could have studied the nature in Gävle when he passed that city on his way northwards at the beginning of his expedition, or when he passed Gävle on the way back to Uppsala. There must be a mistake in the description of this expedition because it would be totally irrational to go back south almost all the way to Uppsala before continuing his expedition to Lycksele and further. (Or he must have had a very good reason to turn back and travel south almost all the way to the starting point before he traveled again to the far north of Sweden to continue his expedition.) Roger491127 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As per this map:, the description of back-and-forth traveling is not a mistake. It's too bad that the license of that image is not Wikipedia-compatible otherwise I would upload a copy for this article! -- Limulus (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added it to the external links though :) -- Limulus (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know if you are a Swede or not Limulus, but that map actually prove the original comment's point. The map shows an arrow coming from the south to Umeå and, not one single arrow going back south from Umeå. And, since Gävle is well south of Umeå, Linneus would not have traveled (Uppsala)->Umeå->Gävle->Lycksele according to the map, even though that's what the text says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.197.79.252 (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a Swede, no. Well let's see about slapping a tag on that part and getting it fixed. -- Limulus (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so reading Blunt (2001) via Google Books: P. 41, Linneaus starts by leaving Uppsala May 12, 1732 ( I take it by the old Swedish calendar ); P. 42, he gets to Umeå 11 days later, [Ah! details *of that* follow] then near Elfkarleby (hears a cuckoo, sees a waterfall and salmon-fishery) and gets to Gävle; P. 43, he gets to Iggesund, then Norby, then on May 18 (so Julian calendar I take it) he is at Fjähl, then Härnösand, then Nordmaling on May 23, then the next day was "ferried across the River Umeå [...and] arrived at Umeå." where he stayed several days; P. 44, he had been travelling on the coast but now he turned "inland, travelling due west," got to Jämtböle; P. 45, then Tegsnäs; P. 46, then Granön; P. 47, then finally Lycksele where it mentions "the pastor and his wife". -- Limulus (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC) OH I get it now; it says he took 11 days to go from Uppsala to Umeå and then the following text details that! -- Limulus (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Map
I moved the Lapland expedition map into that section as per External links with Template:External media (as there is no free equivalent... yet). The external media template says: "The external media template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS. I have identified an excellent quality map of the region from that era in the commons that can be modified to suit our needs: File:1730_Homann_Map_of_Scandinavia,_Norway,_Sweden,_Denmark,_Finland_and_the_Baltics_-_Geographicus_-_Scandinavia-homann-1730.jpg I will need to carefully go through Blunt to find more waypoints. -- Limulus (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus far we have Uppsala, Elfkarleby, Gävle, Umeå, Jämtböle, Tegsnäs, Granön, Lycksele. P. 47, He then left by boat towards Sorsele (though Blunt tells us he never got that far); P. 49, going upriver, eventually left the boat and turned inland, reaching a place called Lycksmyran; P. 50, where he was told to go back and did that; P. 51 went back to Lycksele, then Umeå. Continued along coastal road to Luleå; P. 54 mentions Skellefteå and Old Piteå (but again, it seems this is along the route, on the way to Luleå this time); P. 55 reached New Luleå and then went to Old Luleå. P. 56 starts a new chapter, where Linnaeus goes NW/WNW up the Lule River, crosses into Norway arriving at the coast at Sørfold and then goes back the way he came; place names mentioned are Storbacken, Pajerim, Jokkmokk (on the arctic circle); P. 57, Purkijaur, Tjåmotis, Hyttan (now Kvikkjokk); P. 60, Linnaeus clibs Mt. Vallevare; P. 62 mouth of the River Staloks; P. 63, Sørfold, then Rörstadt; P. 64 return to Luleå, then on to Torneå (Tornio, at the Swedish/Finnish border) and places in the region like Kemi and Kalix, then went on an expedition up the river Tome as far as Vittangi before returning. P. 65 Kemi and Kalix mentioned again. Linnaeus heading south (along E coast), reaching Åbo (Turku). Crossed via Åland (see Åland Islands) to Grisslehamn and then finally back to Uppsala. -- Limulus (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a map on that agrees with the Blunt account, but differs from the historiographus.org map in that Linnaeus returns directly along the Tome.  I think that will be the rough basis of the map I will make. -- Limulus (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is more difficult than I thought it would be ^_-; Maybe I will leave it to more capable hands... also, while pretty, that map is difficult to work with due to the (lack of) place names... -- Limulus (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also -- Limulus (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than making an actual map, we could use one of the templates and generate a picture from it...

-- Limulus (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC) -- Limulus (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I used the above template at 600 pixels to generate File:Linnaeus Lapland Waypoints.png -- Limulus (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've since made several improvements... -- Limulus (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthropomorpha
Linnæus used the etymologically correct spelling Anthropomorpha (later Primates), not "Antropomorpha" as it appeared several times in this article.RandomCritic (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see the image that clearly reads Antropomorpha? Did you read the ref that says "Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim"?  Note that they're adding the h because it was not in Linnaeus' original! -- Limulus (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And here

and elsewhere the text just as clearly reads Anthropomorpha. You're trying to read too much into a mere typographical error. RandomCritic (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not actively trying to read too much into it, sorry, I was wrong it seems. -- Limulus (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is strange. The text in the transcribed letter cited by Limulus differs from that of the scan of what is supposedly the holograph (=the original letter), where an extra clause is present between "collocaverim" and "sed homo" (my italics, and boldface for the underlined "antropomorphon"):
 * Non placet quod hominem inter antropomorpha collocaverim, forte hoc ob vocabulum antropomorphon undefined; sed homo noscit se ipsum. removeamus vocabula... (etc).
 * Nothing is said about it in the apparatus, and a quick search on Google did not yield a reference to this particular clause either. Could the shorter reading be the result of an editorial mistake? Iblardi (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This concerns me; the scan does show that the transcription is lacking, so we need to fix the translation here. "antropomorphon" = man-like? (what is the difference between it and "antropomorpha" and why is the former underlined?) Would "vocabulum" in this case be "name" or more properly something like "term" or "title" or "description"? -- Limulus (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "vocabulum: an appellation, designation, name of any thing", according to Lewis & Short. I think "term" would be a valid synonym, "description" less so. "antropomorphon" would be singular of "antropomorpha", "with human form". The critics' concern might be that categorizing apes/monkeys and humans as a single group on account of their anatomical "form" would be blasphemous, God having created man "in his own image". Iblardi (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Theomorphism. The line of reasoning might be that if man is God-shaped, and monkeys are man-shaped, monkeys may also be considered God-shaped. Linneaus seems to be saying something along this line: "You do not like the fact that I place men under Antropomorpha. Perhaps it is because I use that word, "man-shaped". [Perhaps ironically:] Well, man 'knows himself'. Let's consider not using these words. But then again, is there any real anatomical difference between men and apes? They are so alike that I might as well have switched their names; maybe it would even have been more correct to do so." Iblardi (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that Linnæus uses the spelling Antropomorphon/a in his letter to Gmelin; perhaps because he was not especially careful with his spelling, and because in the Swedish dialect of Neo-Latin th and t sounded exactly alike, so he had no phonetic cue as to which to use. It may well be that Linnæus was in the habit of writing antropomorpha -- it would not be the only Latin solœcism of which he was guilty!  But in Gmelin's letter to Linnæus, Anthropomorpha with h appears. ἀνθρωπόμορφος (anthrōpomorphos) is an attested Greek word meaning "shaped like a human being, humaniform".  Anthropomorpha in the printed text is perhaps an editorial correction, Antropomorpha a mere reproduction of Linnæus' manuscript?
 * Gmelin explains his objection to the term thus: "According to Holy Scripture, [man] is made in the image of God. But if he is to be compared to an animal, he will be a "cereomorph", as the ape [is] an "anthropomorph"." (I suspect that cereomorphos is a misreading, and that Gmelin wrote something else, but I haven't found a scan of his letter.)RandomCritic (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

RandomCritic (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We would need someone who is more familiar with the works and ideas of Linnaeus and his colleagues to help decide what exactly they are telling to each other in both passages. The scan does read "cereomorphos" [not]; it's here. I can only speculate that perhaps Gmelin is perhaps (jokingly/sarcastically) comparing man with a candle (Latin cereus) on account of his very upright form. Something similar seems to be the case with a certain type of cactus called Cereus, this name being "a reference to the stately appearance of the stems of the upright species"(.) A cactus is obviously not an animal species, but perhaps Gmelin means to say that if man is to be compared to an animal, i.e., if he is to be included in Linnaeus' system at all, then the analogous term "cereomorph" would be appropriate for him, since his shape resembles a candle to the same degree that a monkey's shape resembles that of a man. Iblardi (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the scan. I read the word not cereomorphos but cercomorphos; with cerco- perhaps derived from Cercōps (Κέρκωψ) and cercopithēcus (κερκοπίθηκος), as if = "monkey". (This kind of false etymology seems to have been common in zoölogical Latin -- cf. -cilla used for cauda in names of birds!)  I think Gmelin is saying that you can't say that a human being is "shaped like a human", you can only say that an ape is human-shaped, but humans are, if anything, monkey-shaped.  An argument which is intelligible, though, I think, erroneous.RandomCritic (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Forget about the candle thing, this explanation is much more elegant. The reading "cercomorphos" both agrees with the scan and, unlike "cereomorphos" in my own piece of guesswork (which now seems somewhat ridiculous), makes perfect sense in combination with the preceding "si vero animali comparandus est".
 * It looks like I made a very basal error in making the existing transcription my point of reference and unconsciously wanting to see it confirmed in the written text. When I saw the "c" I immediately assumed it was a closed "e", similar to the ones in "est" and "erit" in the same line. Not good. Iblardi (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I now see that if we had simply looked up this passage at Google Books, we would have seen that this is indeed the reading cited by Linnaeus' biographers (Frängsmyr et al., 1994 - also in the article's bibliography). Citing from p. 172: "According to Holy Scripture, we are created in God's image, and if a comparison is to be drawn, we ought to be called instead 'guenon-like,' cercomorpha". My speculations based on a reading "cereomorphus" were completely superfluous. Iblardi (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Human varieties
On 17:17, 19 June 2011 Chrisrus made this addition

"Linnaeus named four sub-varieties of Homo sapiens, . These were 'Europaeus albus' (white European), 'Americaus rubescens' (Red American), 'Asiaricus fuseus' (yellow Asian), and 'Africaus niger' (black African)."

I have moved this from the article to here for discussion. First, I noted that there were spelling errors in the Latin; this appears to be right:


 * Europæus albus
 * Americanus rubescens
 * Asiaticus fuscus
 * Africanus niger

Isn't fuscus "brown" BTW? Also, this is out of any context so some references other than primary sources should be used :) Something like "he divided humans as a species into four sub-categories, or "varieties" -- the first formulation in modern science of what would soon become the "race" concept." Further thoughts? -- Limulus (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My first thought is that yours was an odd reaction to a spelling error. The normal thing to do is fix it.  My second thought is, it's not only not out of place but a glaring omission, especially considering the picture of the page we're talking about is right there, and anyone can see it talks about the sister and parent taxons just as the text does but then omits the last part.  So I think it's the opposite of "out of context".  If you want to contextualize, please do so around the simple statement of fact when I redo, which I'll do after waiting an apprpriate amount of time for others to comment. Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just the spelling errors (and I am not a Latin expert by any means, hence my question about "fuscus"), but the overall impression that it was just quickly tacked on at the end of a section without much thought for quality or integration into the text. That you referenced an image was not a good sign either (do see WP:SECONDARY). The correct thing to do is fix it, yes, but as I didn't have time to do that before and as you did not add it 'fixed' to begin with, I thought it most appropriate to put it here rather than simply rv your edit completely (I fully agree that inclusion of this does have merit). Let's find some secondary refs that talk about this (e.g. from Google Books) and proceed.  -- Limulus (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SECONDARY refers to people interpreting things. I'm not interpreting anything with this edit so there is nothing to worry about in terms of WP:SECONDARY, and, although I'll wait to see what you come up with, I'm a bit leery of stating anyone's interpretation of this simple fact.  I think we should just say he did so sub-divide Homo sapiens and not say anything more about it.  It seems to me the thing to do here is simply to pass along this information without any comment, even from good WP:RSs.  But again, we can see what you come up with.  (I don't know why it can't go back in the with the color and spelling fixed, while we're waiting. Chrisrus (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The simple act of translation is an interpretation; e.g. fuscus is not "yellow" The ref I found below explains that fuscus (dark/brown) became luridus (yellow) in the 10th edition.  Unless you are good at translating Latin, you need to rely on secondary sources.  Also, because of the internet, we have lots to choose from, so one should at least try to find some. -- Limulus (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * -- Limulus (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * -- Limulus (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To what extent should we use the information already in Scientific_racism? -- Limulus (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As per Linnaeus changed fuscus ("dark") to luridus ("pale yellow") in the 10th edition... -- Limulus (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * quotes Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" (which has no Google Books preview)


 * Looking at the article, I think this info should be placed immediately above the "Linnaeus added a second human species in Systema Naturae" paragraph. -- Limulus (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me take a shot at this and tell me what you think:

''In the first edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus subdivided the human species into four varieties based on geographical boundaries: Europeans, (Native) Americans, Asians and Africans, with skin color as a convenient descriptor (white, red, dark/brown and black, respectively). In the tenth edition of Systema Naturae he further detailed stereotypical characteristics for each variety (and changed the description of Asians' skin tone to pale/yellow).''

-- Limulus (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add this into the article as it currently reads; feel free to still leave comments though :) -- Limulus (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I thank you for working this information into the section neatly for greater flow. I would like, however, to add to it the invalid taxa " "Europaeus albus" (white European), "Americaus rubescens" (Red American), "Asiaricus fuseus" (yellow Asian), and "Africaus niger" (black African).  I want to make redirects for each of these notable invalid taxa that will redirect any searches that there might be for them here, to this article, in that subsection.  Searchers for those invalid taxa should not be directed to other places.  When the redirect sends them here, they should find them in the text so they understand why they have been directed here and not elsewhere. Thanks again for your contribution to this article! Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem :) I tweaked some things about your changes (mostly the Latin spellings) but otherwise left it basically intact. -- Limulus (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good job. Now I'm going to create a redirects for Homo sapiens asiaticus luridus and Asiaticus luridus that will go directly to that subsection also. Chrisrus (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Homo sapiens monstrosus"
MSW3 and many other authorities list "monstrosus" as a taxonomic synonym for Homo sapiens, on the authority "Linnaeus, 1758". This is not mentioned in the article, but it would be good if the story behind this invalid taxon would be told here, in the "views on mankind" subsection. There is a strange and interesting story behind the fact that authorities that list synonyms for H.sapiens to this day all seem to include "monstrosus" and cite Linnaeus, 1758. Several good WP:RS books discuss this topic; tell that part of the story. Then, a redirect for "Homo sapeins monstrosus" should redirect here, to that subsection. Chrisrus (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the "readings in early antropology" ref it appears (mid-page 178) to have been added for the 10th edition, but seems to include Homo troglodytes; the end of that section likely already has most of the info you want, we just need to find a bit more to incorporate the term you want. -- Limulus (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These three should be sufficient for our needs:   -- Limulus (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The last one is particularly good for what we need; here's what I get out of reading it:


 * Additionally, Linnaeus created a cryptid wastebasket taxon "monstrosus" for "wild and monstrous humans, unknown groups, and more or less abnormal people."


 * I will add that to the article (at the end of the human varieties mention) momentarily. -- Limulus (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Views on Mankind to be given subsection headings.
First, I would like to say that this section is excellent.

Second, I want to see it divided into subsections as follows:
 * 1) Placement of “Homo” into “parent” taxa (Anthropomorpha/Primata)
 * 2) Naming of “sister” taxa to sapiens (troglodytes, monstroso, etc.)
 * 3) Naming of subspecific varieties (continental varieties, etc.)

It would be very nice, perhaps important, for the section to be so subdivided. I pause for comments before proceeding. Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The text lends itself to being separated into sections along current paragraph breaks; so long as there is enough material for each section, I don't have a problem with it. I am going to copy the text from the article below and add some breaks so we can fiddle with it here first. Did you have any specific section titles in mind? -- Limulus (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that it does. I also agree that so doing may show some areas might merrit further expansion, detailing his thought and debates on each of these sub-matters that we know of from his letters and debates and such.


 * As for the section titles, I think we should go with the more technical, taxonic vocabulary, as if we were talking about any other animal, because that's what he did. I like the terms "parent taxon", "sister taxa", and "daughter taxa", but one could go with family, genus, species, and subspecies,, varieties, as the case may be in taxonomy current to the times.  What did he call them in Latin?  Chrisrus (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The section titles are a clue to the content of the section; I think that just using terms like "parent taxon" (unless very limited to classification characteristics) is rather dry and does not convey the various ideas in the sections. Consider that in the section I labeled "Athropomorpha" (translated in the text as "manlike") we mention theological concerns.  Of the three names that I suggested, I think that one is the best suited to its corresponding text.


 * "Other species" is, I freely admit, pretty blah and we should pick something that captures the fact that Linnaeus, who only briefly left Sweden, was getting fantastic reports from the other side of the planet and was trying to separate fact from fiction. "Cryptids" might be a good title because we also talk about Paradoxa. "Troglodyta" (as it is explained in the text and is in line with "Athropomorpha" as a name Linnaeus picked) would be good.


 * "Racial classification" implies more than just unranked varieties of some species of wildflower. Linnaeus was also assigning non-morphological values to them. I would suggest the term "race" should be used or implied in the section title. Your turn to talk :) -- Limulus (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We should go with what he called them, I think. The point is, he treated humans no different than he would any plant species.  Ant[h]ropomorpha/Primata were different ideas of what to call the "family", is that true, to which we belonged?  Or the Latin word for "family".  "Homo" is called a "genus" now, is that what he called it?  It seems to have been in the species position in the picture, because the next level he follows the convention of writing "var.", which with plants and such would have been "variety", or the Latin word intended when he wrote "var."  Yes, we should say something like "...which corresponded to the most commonly known races..." or some such to indicate that he was obviously talking about what we would today recognize as the four most commonly referred to "races", but that'd be for the text, not the A point could be that he definately saw all the races as fully human, but that he used characteristics such as Asians preferring loose clothing and other such iffy characteristics, many of which would make a modern reader blush, racist sterotypes, so while he was a great hero, modern readers might see him as racist, although that was the way pretty much everyone used to think, I gather.  But I get ahead of myself.  Linnaeus called them "varieties", that's as close as we can get in English, so I think we should do so as well. because the point is not to simply factually report the way he saw it.


 * One should fit the titles to the text. We should avoid non-english words (for the EN wikipedia) unless they are used in the text and explained (as Anthropomorpha is). What do you propose (specifically) we use for the section headings? Do you wish to change "Views on mankind" as well? -- Limulus (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that one should fit titles to the text and avoid non-English words. I propose "Biological Family", "Other Homo Species", and "Varieties of Homo Sapiens" or some such.  Perhaps "Placement into a biological family", for the part that seems to have been most controvertial at the time, "Possible non sapien species of "Homo", and "Varieties of Homo sapiens", or some such for the two tha would raise eyebrows today.
 * Why not just "family" (or "biological family" or "placement in and naming of biological family), "Species" (or "Sister species" or "possible sister species to Homo sapiens" or some such), and "varieties", (or "subvarieties" or "subspecies of Homo sapiens" or some such). If he never used the Latin words for "race" or "subspecies" then we can describe them as such in the text maybe, it depends how because we don't want to put words in his mouth, but my point is the word "varieties" seems best because that's what he called them.  The point is to describe his views on mankind, so his choice of synonym should be the one we choose for the heading.  Chrisrus (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have changed the test case below to reflect your suggestions. IMHO: They are too clinical and insufficiently summarize the text.
 * Biological Family: I had previously suggested "Anthropomorpha" (and I still like it very much), but whatever is chosen needs to highlight the specialness of grouping humans with apes and monkeys and all the controversy that brought. 'Man among the Primates'? 'Man-like animals'?
 * Other Homo species: Had previously suggested "Cryptids" and "Troglodyta". (Maybe 'Homo troglodytes'?) The 'other human species' are not validly recognized as such so if we are going to mention it as other species, we should try to point that incorrectness out somehow; again "we should pick something that captures the fact that Linnaeus, who only briefly left Sweden, was getting fantastic reports from the other side of the planet and was trying to separate fact from fiction."
 * Varieties of Homo sapiens: This is the one that I am most inclined to support based on the text (even if we just simplify it to 'Human varieties'). -- Limulus (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your contributions to this article, and for those you've made with regard to this matter.
 * The problem is "ant[h]ropomorpha" is that it isn't widely understood, wasn't used for very long, and was replaced with the term for primates. As the text teaches, people were touchy about that designation, and he didn't care too much about it, and so it was changed to Primata.  That section seems to be about how Linneaus's thought about how we fit in with the larger scheme of things, specifically into which group humans belong; on which branch on the tree of life we are, and whether it's called "anthorpomorpha" or "simomorpha" or whatever made no difference to him, what he cared about was that we as a species should be placed into a genus and a family.  The section title might be improvable, but we want it to be as clear as possible: that we belong to a greater branch of living things, that there might or might not be other "homo" species, and that by applying the same standards we use for any other species, we have certain "sub" varities or subspecies.  And you're right, that was the thing that experts most remember about his thought on the topic and what made him so far ahead of his time, unlike the sections that follow, which are only controvertial in retrospect.  Chrisrus (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * About his casting about from non-sapiens "Homo" species, he was clearly wrong, there are and were at his time no others alive. But he didn't know that at the time and had to leave open for those possiblities.  As you say, he hadn't been very many places and had heard vague reports and reason dictated to him that such a creature might have existed.  And they might have, he was right, but there didn't happen to be.  He was absolutely right to leave a place open for all of the other memebers of Homo (genus) that were later found, and he was on the right track by calling them by the Latin word for "caveman".
 * "monstroso" is a bit more mysterious. This, as the article says, was for those that were not quite human.  Many were cryptids and such, but others were, if I may, freaks; people who did not conform to his definition of human, a word to him that implied such things as having elbows and only one head.  Strange, and I wonder if there was precedent for this amoung the Botonists or some such.  This experts do seem to have commented on a bit, and yes it is an interesting side note, but there are several places I've found on the internet where people have clearly the wrong ideas about monstroso, saying such false things as him having classified non-European races into that taxon, which is just not true. Sure, he was racist by today's standards, but he never categorized other races as non- or sub-human, or less than fully human.  He may have insulted them in his descriptions of them, but he never classified them as less than %100 human.
 * Again, it was shocking at the time to treat humans as one would any other animal, but what was shocking at the time about it is not what was shocking about it now. What was shocking then was that to look at humans as a taxonomist from another planet might clearly places us with the monkeys and apes and so on.  That doesn't shock most of us anymore.  That's been pretty much accepted by everyone except some religious people and such.  What shocks us today is the fact that any objective scientist would probably done as he did and divided us into sub-varieties, subspecific categories.  He gave us the first four most obvious types, whites, blacks, asians, and indians.  No one at the time seemed at all bothered by this, and others went on to expand on this idea, adding the south-central asians, the australians, polynesians, and so on.  In fact, science today has pretty much mapped the human genome and we know which peoples divided into which and approximately when.  But what is just not done today is to assign them taxa or to speak of subspecies of humans at all, and it is important and interesting to note that there was a time when the situation was quite the opposite.  All this in the interest of persuading you that clinical and matter-of-fact is a good tone to cutivate here, as this matter is sensitive and benefits from objectivity.  Chrisrus (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should be non-objective, I'm saying we should leave purely technical descriptions for technical articles like Homo.
 * Some further suggestions: "Primate family", "Strange people", "Four races" -- Limulus (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Or "Four varieties" if that would be more acceptable. -- Limulus (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would, thank you. I'll wait a bit to see if this arrangement seems stable, but i plan do adjust the appropriate search redirects to the appropriate subsection. Chrisrus (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're ok with "Primate family", "Strange people", "Four varieties"? :) If so I can do the adjustments to the article right now and we can watch for objections. -- Limulus (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose, but as I've implied if I had my way they'd be "Biological Family" (as a main point of the text is that the exact name was in flux at the time), "Other Homo species" (as the text is about whether there were other species other than sapeins), and "Varieties of Homo sapiens." This seems more encyclopedic to me, but perhaps there are other concerns and I'm less concerned about what to call the subsections than that the subsections be made.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh! I have just solved the puzzle; Redirect says: "To ensure that a redirect will not break if a section title gets altered, or to create a redirect to a point on the page other than a section heading, create an explicit target anchor in the page, e.g. by using the anchor template."  I will add the names you want so we can both be happy :) -- Limulus (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Try these links :) Carl Linnaeus, Carl Linnaeus, Carl Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects:

 * 1) Anthropomorpha seems fine the way it is
 * 2) separate page, ok -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Homo troglodytes
 * 4) Changed redirect from Carl_Linnaeus to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) troglodytes
 * 6) separate page, ok -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Homo lar
 * 8) Changed redirect from Carl_Linnaeus to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Europæus albus
 * 10) malformed (doubling like that doesn't work). Also, Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Europaeus albus
 * 12) why just to Views_on_mankind? Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) albus
 * 14) separate page, ok -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Europeus
 * 16) intentional typo? (Europaeus redirects to a page about an asteroid) Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Americanus rubescens
 * 18) Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) rubescens
 * 20) Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Asiaticus fuscus
 * 22) Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Asiaticus luridus
 * 24) Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Africanus niger
 * 26) Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) monstrosus
 * 28) separate page, ok -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Homo monstosus
 * 30) Changed redirect to Carl_Linnaeus -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Try'm out and see what you think! Do they all seem to find their way correctly? We should make more, with trinomials and all. Chrisrus (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be sure to use the anchors I made just for you ;) Also, that should be good I think :) -- Limulus (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good! As far as I'm conserned, we can collapse or archive this thread; donno what others think.  As long as it works.  I have other notable invalid taxa on my talk page to investigate and hopefully find the best redirect for. Chrisrus (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad that this appears to have been resolved to your satisfaction! Don't worry about the thread; it will be automatically archived if no one else contributes. -- Limulus (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Move commemoration to a new article
As per Talk:Carl Linnaeus/GA1, Esuzu comments: "I think some parts, like the "commemoration" needs to refer to a main article." Based simply on WP:SIZERULE and the fact that this article is now ~89K, I second this. I suggest we copy the current whole section to a new article and make new short summary for here. -- Limulus (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my distillation of the section; still too long, or ok as a starter? -- Limulus (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Anniversaries of Linnaeus' birth, especially in centennial years, have been marked by major celebrations. Linnaeus has appeared on numerous Swedish postage stamps and banknotes. There are numerous statues of Linnaeus in countries around the world. The Linnean Society of London has awarded the Linnean Medal for excellence in botany or zoology since 1888. Following approval by the Parliament of Sweden, Växjö University and Kalmar College merged on 1 January 2010 to become Linnaeus University.  Other things named after Linnaeus include the twinflower genus Linnaea, Linné (crater) on the Earth's moon and the cobalt sulfide mineral Linnaeite."

As far as a title for the new article, how about "Linnaean Commemoration" or "Carl Linnaeus Commemoration" or "Commemoration of Linnaeus"? Other ideas? -- Limulus (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I'm going to be bold and use "Commemoration of Carl Linnaeus" based on the existence of Commemoration of Charles Darwin but if there are objections, we can certainly turn that into a redirect page :) -- Limulus (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The distillation above is good, as is the title of the daughter article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear! -- Limulus (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "Depictions" from external links could go to the new page too. -- Limulus (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done :) -- Limulus (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as keeping images in that section goes, if just one, I would like to keep 'Celebration in Råshult, 1907' -- Limulus (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Also, a reminder to myself then to modify the caption on the pic of L in Sami attire to mention the twinflower he is holding. -- Limulus (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is done too. -- Limulus (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

More referencing needed
The "Major publications" and "Linnaean taxonomy" sections need some more inline referencing where they discuss/evaluate his contributions. I think I can add some, but help would be appreciated. (I also agree with some comments above that the article does not sufficiently bring out to a non-biologist the magnitude of his contribution. I'm not quite sure how to fix this; partly it's because there is so much detail about his life that it rather swamps evaluation.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Personally I think those sections could need a re-writing/revamping entirely. So far from what they could (and should) be. Esuzu  ( talk ) 17:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding an excess of biographical detail, Expedition to Lapland has a lot of detail, perhaps too much for here, but certainly enough to sustain a smaller article (creating the commemoration article seems to have worked well). If we summarise here and move the text to a new article, we should definitely move the map too, but I would like to leave the pic of L in Sami clothes (though the long footnote could move too). Would anyone else care to nominate more sections that would be better served as sub-articles? Or... perhaps... should ALL of the biography be split off into a separate article and just a summary remain?  That would probably halve the article... -- Limulus (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I note, FYI, the existence of biography articles, e.g. Biography of Frank Sinatra and Biography of Pope John Paul II. I will add a split tag to the article to try to generate more discussion. -- Limulus (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a great idea. However, I do not think we should shorten the info here already in the biography but rather lengthen the subarticle. This biography might be long but not too long IMO. Esuzu  ( talk ) 06:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Charles Darwin article is rather like the present form of this one, i.e. it includes biography and scientific significance. Then it links to more detailed articles on, e.g., the Second voyage of HMS Beagle. Personally I think that this is the model to follow, i.e. an integrated main article covering Linnaeus as a whole plus links to more specialized articles, which are summarized in the main article, and which have more details, e.g. the Lapland expedition and Linnaean taxonomy. (I have been doing some work in this latter area, starting with a major re-write of Binomial nomenclature. Just as the evolution articles distinguish between modern views and Darwin's views, I think there should be two articles, one on Linnaeus' system/taxonomy and one on its modern descendant.)
 * So I favour (a) developing some 'spin off' articles (b) when these exist, summarizing but not removing the material in the main article. I don't entirely agree with Esuzu in this respect. For me, the main article should be well-balanced between Linnaeus' life and his scientific contributions, and I think this will need some limited reduction of the "life" material. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I almost entirely agree with you Peter coxhead. But I still think we should be careful when we summarise from the biography since a lot is needed. Although maybe not all info about his travels etc. But it should not be cut down too much IMO, I think rather the other bits (taxonomy and publications etc...) should be expanded. But I am not against a slight cut down. Esuzu  ( talk ) 08:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case I think we are in total agreement. As Linnaeus is the second most important pre-20th century biologist after Darwin in terms of their impact on modern biology (I'm sure there will be people who will argue about this, but they're wrong!), the Charles Darwin article seems to me a good guide. The article should be self-contained, giving enough detail to understand Linnaeus' life and work without needed to refer to the more specialized articles, but allowing the interested reader to explore further. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed! We could use some help with some of the sections.~If you have more time it would be great. Taxonomy need rewriting... Esuzu  ( talk ) 12:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested summary for Expedition to Lapland


During a visit with his parents, Linnaeus told them about his plan to travel to Lapland; Rudbeck had made the journey in 1695, but the detailed results of his exploration were lost in a fire seven years afterwards. Linnaeus' hope was to find new plants, animals and possibly valuable minerals. He was also curious about the customs of the native Sami people, reindeer-herding nomads who wandered Scandinavia's vast tundras. In April 1732, Linnaeus was awarded a grant from the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala for his journey.

Linnaeus began his expedition from Uppsala in May; he travelled on foot and horse, bringing with him his journal, botanical and ornithological manuscripts and sheets of paper for pressing plants. Near Gävle he found great quantities of Campanula serpyllifolia, later known as Linnaea borealis, the twinflower that would become his favourite. He sometimes dismounted on the way to examine a flower or rock and was particularly interested in mosses and lichens, the latter a main part of the diet of the reindeer, a common animal in Lapland.

Linnaeus travelled clockwise around the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, making major inland incursions from Umeå, Luleå and Tornio. He returned from his six-month long, over 2000 km expedition in October, having gathered and observed many plants, birds and rocks. Although Lapland was a region with limited biodiversity, Linnaeus described about 100 previously unidentified plants. These became the basis of his book Flora Lapponica.

It was also during this expedition that Linnaeus had a flash of insight regarding the classification of mammals. Upon observing the lower jawbone of a horse at the side of a road he was traveling, Linnaeus remarked: "If I only knew how many teeth and of what kind every animal had, how many teats and where they were placed, I should perhaps be able to work out a perfectly natural system for the arrangement of all quadrupeds."

Dalarna

In 1734, Linnaeus led a small group of students to Dalarna. Funded by the Governor of Dalarna, the expedition was to catalogue known natural resources and discover new ones, but also to gather intelligence on Norwegian mining activities at Røros.


 * Thoughts? -- Limulus (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted in the discussion above, the aim should be to be complete and self-contained, balancing biography with scientific work. The "biography part" above seems fine to me; what seems to be missing in the article is some more assessment of the impact of this particular travel and collection on his thoughts and scientific work (other than the remark about mammal classification). My interests are firmly in the Linnaean system; I would like to learn more about how his ideas developed. But perhaps there are not good sources for this? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Added an Expand section tag to focus efforts to that effect; I think we can import some text from the Flora Lapponica article to further that goal... Regardless, it sounds like we can now proceed with the new article. -- Limulus (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Peter coxhead: I understand what you want, when I wrote and researched that part I tried to find his "way to the linnean taxonomy". What I can find there is no really good sources for this. There is of course Linnaeus own diaries etc but from what I can recall they are not reliable in that sense... Unfortunately. It would be great if it could be found though :) Esuzu  ( talk ) 12:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources that call him a Creationist
Twice now, other contributors have removed sources which call Linnaeus a creationist. Is this because there is a consensus in the real world that he isn't one, or what?

Each time, the edit comment has complained that there was a problem with the reference.
 * 1) that I used Amazon.com for a link
 * 2) that I (supposedly) cited a "blog"

I have corrected #1 by avoiding using an Amazon link and just citing the book by author, title and page. But #2 didn't cite a blog at all. I cited the Victorian Web (an academic source) and a NY Times article.

If the real issue is that some people disagree over whether Linnaeus was a creationist, or are upset because they feel being a creationist implies something (like opposition to evolution?), then they ought to follow NPOV and describe the controversy over this or that point.

But I'm not going to edit war over this. I've made a good edit, and if people want to suppress information about a long-dead historical figure, they can (although I wish they wouldn't). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that your insertion is (1) incorrectly formatted in a GA, and (2) denigrates Creationism, which is POV. Your additions are phrased as "Despite being a Creationst, he made scientific contributions", which implies that Creationists don't normally make useful contributions.  It's also (3) inserted in a short summary of the following section, and would be better placed several paragraphs following where the theological considerations are actually addressed.  In any event, they still need to be formatted so that your footnotes appear in the Notes, and not in the References.  I pointed this out on your talk page, so I assume you saw it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for having overlooked my user talk page, and thanks for your three numbered points. I'm willing to self-revert (if you wish), pending resolution of them.


 * Or if you can bear with me, I'll try to fix them myself or (better yet) work with you to fix them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done additional research. Your two citations of sources (with the same quotation) do not actually provide support for your position on Linnaeus' religious philosophy, any more than Einstein's famous "God does not play dice" would do.  Your third citation, the only one making a strong claim is by Dan Graves, who is the author of The Earth Will Reel from its Place; Scientific Confirmation for Biblical Prophecies of Geological Upheaval, which illustrates the very problem Nadia was pointing out.  Dan Graves is not a suitable author to cite for factual support in a reputable encyclopedia.  His books are self-published, very POV, and contain many factual errors, some of which I spotted even while scrolling through the glossary at the end of the preview version at amazon.com.  The book certainly does not hold up to the standards described at WP:RS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The other concern I have is calling someone "a creationist" for this time period, implying the belief is a lot more a choice that it is now. Belief in god and creation was pretty standard then I would have thought. Hence I think describing his beliefs in verbs rather than him as a noun is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems we were all trying to say the same thing at the same time (I hit an edit conflict too). That's a good point about Einstein's famous quote. Here's what I was writing: The problem that I see with these edits is the absurdity of the statements that you are quoting as fact. These claim that someone who died in 1778, 31 years before Darwin was born, was a Creationist because he used the word "God" when stating that he was aiming to catalogue everything that exists (including minerals, by the way). It is even more absurd to insert the adjective "firm" into this statement and say "Linnaeus was a firm creationist." If you said that Dan Graves has claimed that Linnaeus was a Creationist, then I would not object (though I might add something to show the absurdity of that claim). The Victorian Web is a blog; the instructions for contributors make clear that there is no peer-review process, but an "editor in chief". Nadiatalent (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec too) Well, I just wrote elsewhere,, maybe the problem is terminology. But we could just quote exactly what he wrote, and let modernists interpret his words any way they wish.


 * I understand that he thought (at first) all species were created by God (or at least as was suggested above, was going along with the zeitgeist of the times). Then he conceded (?) that new species could appear due to hybridization.


 * To do the topic justice, we'd have to consider the historical context of which scientists believed what (and when). That could go beyond the scope of this article, although really that's no reason not to try to make a start here.


 * I wonder if there is any historical revisionism (either on the part of Creationism supporters like Dan Graves, or of Evolution supporters). Recall the historical episode in which some writers were claiming that medieval Christians believed in a flat earth (see myth of the Flat Earth, which I worked a lot on in April 2010). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several huge topics opening up here. A good starting point would be to read all of Darwin's published works, he dealt with just about everything that was available to him at the time, and took many years to explain everything in sufficient detail. The question of hybrids was just one of the important matters because anyone who isn't a very serious horticulturist, and that included most naturalists of the time, would be unaware of them. After finishing Darwin's work, I recommend reading Wilhelm Olbers Focke's Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Change of external link
Can somebody who is permitted to edit this page change the external link to "Biography at the Department of Systematic Botany, University of Uppsala" from "http://www.systbot.uu.se/information/history/linnaeus.htm", which only redirects to the Department of Systematic Biology of Uppsala University (into which the Department of Systemaic Botany have merged), to the working "http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/index-en.html"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Episcophagus (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit request
Under Early education, the following is somewhat ambiguous (had to read twice): "His father began teaching Linnaeus Latin..."

Request change to: "Carl's father began teaching him Latin..." (or similar) -- Note: Carl and his father are both "Linnaeus", and was wondering what "Linnaeus Latin" is. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality of plants
(copied from User talk:M0rphzone as this user archived his answer before anyone could react)

Dear M0rphzone, Linnaeus did not just describe the morphology of the reproductive organs of plants. He provoked a scandal as het described the sexual system, of plants or parts thereof being either male or female, and the mating of the two. It is well documented in Carl Linnaeus Species Plantarum, A Facsimile of the first edition 1753, Volume I, with an introduction by W.T. Stearn, Ch. IV, p. 24- (Ray Society; 1957). On p. 25 Stearn writes: "The dramatic metaphorical form in which Linnaeus published his system based on the 'loves of the plants' was better suited to the temper and manners of the 18th than the 19th century, though even in that robust period it did not escape criticism." and so on. Your "claim" that the word "sexuality" only describes humans is thereby put to the test and falsified. But I would be glad of course if you could come up with a better wording, in stead of just undoing my last edit. Better wording means that you don't use the word "morphology" as that is only half or even less of the essence of what Linnaeus published, and the parallel with human sexuality should still be clear as this is the parallel Linnaeus himself made. I'm very much looking forward to your suggestion. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Disregarding the topic of Linneaus and that article, show me an instance where "plant sexuality" is used more often than "plant reproduction" or "plant sexual morphology". I guarantee you plant sexuality is an obscure, inaccurate, and unspecific name for use in academic settings. And if you used Google hits, the difference is even greater. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of what words are used most frequently (or, even worse, about using Google hits on the subject): it is about how Linnaeus described the topic of sexual reproduction in plants. Linnaeus compared the pistils with "brides", the stamens with "grooms", and the combination of the two in flowers as "marriages". He was heavily criticised by, amongst others, Johann Siegesbeck, when he described marriages of several grooms with one bride (or other unlawful combinations). Linnaeus used words of human sexuality when he described sexual reproduction in plants. Part of the debate on his system was about just that. I think that should be clear in the article and I don't think it will if one uses only current, 21st century, academic words like "sexual morphology" when something with a different feel is meant. Wikiklaas (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikiklaas: I agree entirely that if the edits had changed the use of "sexuality" in a description of Linnaeus' "sexual system" for classifying plants, then it would be wrong for the reason you give. However, looking at the page history, this doesn't seem to be the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation?
Can anyone add the IPA for his Swedish name, and maybe for the common English name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.197.253.149 (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The English pronunciation is [lɪ'neɪ.ɨs] and the Swedish is [lɪ'niːɵs], as far as I can tell. I'm no expert on Swedish pronunciation, though. --AxleHelios (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it Carolus Linnæus?
I took classes in biology and he was always referred to as Carolus Linnæus in the textbooks and by the professors. Since when is his name "Carl"? That doesn't seem to be the name that the scientific community uses to refer to him, or at the very least, it wasn't at the time I was educated. He published all his scientific papers under the name Carolus Linnæus, and I think that would seem to indicate that would be the name he would prefer people call him, if he were still alive today, when they discuss him in the context of his scientific work. Apparently, some time in the past, this Wikipedia article used to use the name Carolus Linnæus to refer to him, which I believe was correct. However, for some unfortunate and inexplicable reason, it seems the article now has renamed him to "Carl", on November 30 of 2007, just because "Carl" was his birth name. I would point out that Mark Twain's birth name was not Mark Twain, but people knew him as Mark Twain, rather than his birth name "Samuel Langhorne Clemens". Wikipedia correctly calls him by his true name, the name that he went by, namely Mark Twain. In the case of Carolus Linnæus, he had a great affinity for the Latin language and it is quite clear that the name he went by was Carolus Linnæus. He invented the system of binomial nomenclature which also uses Latin for all of the names. I highly doubt that the name "Carl" used for him in both the article title and the article itself is accurate. Are there actually any legitimate sources that show any evidence that he actually used this name himself, for example, perhaps in correspondence with his contemporaries? The main source I found listed for that claim was a book, which there was a link to in the references section, where it tells about the book on Google Books, and the reviews of that book say that it is quite bad. So I would say, not a good source. I propose changing the title of the article back to Carolus Linnæus as it was prior to November 30, 2007, unless someone can provide multiple reliable sources that indicate that he did indeed go by the name "Carl" (and it seems most websites take their cue from Wikipedia about what to call him unfortunately, so they are not good sources, a primary source is much better; if we just cite information sources that got their information from Wikipedia this is circular logic, so it would be best to cite sources that existed prior to Wikipedia's existence to eliminate the possibility of such a circular reasoning effect). Or, if there was actually a discussion that took place when the page got renamed, I would like to at least have a link to that discussion so that I could see what people said and the logic behind it, and whether there actually was a consensus to rename it to "Carl Linnæus," or whether the page, instead, got renamed without going through such a process and debate. Anyway, I believe that the principle behind why the Mark Twain article is called "Mark Twain" also applies here and means this article should be called "Carolus Linnæus", although I'm not well enough versed in Wikipedia policies to know what exact policy to cite. Thank you and I hope you consider this seriously. Oh, and I don't feel like putting some awful template at the top of the page about proposing to change the title, this isn't really an official proposal like that, since if someone can provide sufficient justification for the current name for the page, I suppose I'd be able to live with it, plus templates about disputes that are at the tops of pages just look so nasty on top of articles, I'd rather not do that sort of thing here, especially since this article is quite good with the exception of getting his name wrong throughout the entire article. --Yetisyny (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See here. "Carl Linnaeus’s paternal grandfather, like most Swedish peasants and farmers of his times, had no surname and was known, in accordance with the old Scandinavian name system, as Ingemar Bengtsson, being the son of Bengt Ingemarsson. When his son, Carl’s father, Nils Ingemarsson (1674-1733), went to the university of Lund, he had to provide himself with a surname for registration purposes. He invented the name Linnaeus in allusion to a large and ancient tree of the small leaved linden (Tilia cordata Miller, T. Europaea L. in part), known in the Småland dialect as a “linn”, which grew on the family property known in the seventeenth century as Linnegard." "Carolus Linnaeus" is a latinized form that he used when writing in Latin. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus a.k.a. Carl Linnaeus
Why?
 * Carl Linnaeus (Swedish original name Carl Linnaeus ...

Yeah, I get it. Why the repetition? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, that seems like unnecessary clutter. I've been bold and removed it. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor Adjustments to the Intro
I think the intro could be slightly condensed by possibly moving the 3rd paragraph commentary on Linnaeus to the section "Commentary on Linnaeus." The last paragraph could probably be moved somewhere else as well, such as the "Views on Mankind" section? These two parts just seem a little unnecessary for anyone just trying to get a brief overview of who Linnaeus was from the intro. Ashleyweir (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Too many subsections in Biography
There are 17 subsections in Biography, one of them a single sentence; and two of them are names of books, also dealt with in separate sections later in the article, and they are now acquiring duplicate hatnotes. I propose to remove some of these section headings - we obviously shouldn't have 2 sections per book, at least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Latin in Linnaeus's household

 * I read somewhere that so much Latin was spoken in Linnaeus's childhood household that he learned Latin as his first spoken language, even before he learned Swedish. Has anyone got a reference for this? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. This unverifiable story is probably a confusion with that of Elias Magnus Fries, another Swedish botanist, who is said to use Latin in his household instead of Swedish see this bio, this and this. Chhandama (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Two Kingdoms Classification: In his Systema Naturae, first published in 1735, Carolus Linnaeus distinguished two kingdoms of living things: Animalia for animals and Plantae (Vegetabilia) for plants. He classified all living organisms into two kingdoms – on the basis of nutrition and locomotion (mobility). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.37.113 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017
A history of the warfare between science and Theology is more propoganda than history so perhaps we can include the quotation but mention that Numbers, Ronald L. “Introduction” in Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Ed. Ronald Numbers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009. Page 6. 123.231.107.255 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Carl von Linné.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Carl von Linné.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 23, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-05-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carl Linnaeus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717202527/http://www.linnean.org/fileadmin/images/Linnean/Special_Issue_8_-_The_Linneaen_Legacy.pdf to http://www.linnean.org/fileadmin/images/Linnean/Special_Issue_8_-_The_Linneaen_Legacy.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616073944/http://huntbot.andrew.cmu.edu/HIBD/Departments/Library/LinnaeanDiss.shtml to http://huntbot.andrew.cmu.edu/HIBD/Departments/Library/LinnaeanDiss.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Linnaeus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608101238/http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/life/8_3.html to http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/life/8_3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017
Formalized is spelt incorrectly. It is currently spelt as "Formalised" and should be ammended to "Formalized." Not a major change, but should be done for grammatical correctness. 76.161.129.134 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This page follows British English convention (see top of this talk page), in which case the spelling is correct. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Linnaeus" or "Linnæus"
Both two spellings are used in the page. KotobaSuke (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. Apart from the Latin version explained in the lead section, is there any good reason why the spelling shouldn't follow the article title everywhere else? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018
For the section on Solander, it must be added that he was originally employed at the British Museum in 1763. A new paper, Edwin D. Rose, (2018) Specimens, slips and systems: Daniel Solander and the classification of nature at the world's first public museum, 1753–1768https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/specimens-slips-and-systems-daniel-solander-and-the-classification-of-nature-at-the-worlds-first-public-museum-17531768/D9B06CA7B73563A6E217B9EC6F73BBD7 needs to be referenced. Edwin Rose 2018 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not done because you should not be using Wikipedia to promote your own article and external links, that's considered spamming. If your articles are reliable sources then wait until someone else adds them otherwise it just looks like you're trying to advance your own external promotion. Canterbury Tail talk 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Type specimen
At the time this article became listed as a Good Article on 13 Oct 2011, the lead had the sentence:

"In 1959, Carl Linnaeus was designated as the lectotype for Homo sapiens, which means that following the nomenclatural rules, Homo sapiens was validly defined as the animal species to which Linnaeus belonged."

On 1 May 2013, with the edit summary Under the ICZN, Linnaeus is the holotype, not a lectotype (Stearns' designation was not valid); I'm an ICZN Commissioner and can confirm that this only requires reference to the Code itself, change it to the sentence (N.B. "type specimen" is pipe-linked to holotype):

"Linnaeus' remains comprise the type specimen for the species Homo sapiens, following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, since the sole specimen he is known to have examined when writing the species description was himself."

reverted with an edit message Anyone with a nickname can claim to be a commissioner but someone's status is no proof for justification: provide a published reference please (for the record I think it's well established he is in fact an ICZN comissioner); re-reverted with the edit message The Code articles I gave ARE a published reference; the Code does not refer to specific cases individually. On 14 April 2014, changed the wikilink of "type specimen" being piped to holotype to type (biology) and this is the version we have at present.

Since, as per MOS:LEADREL Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, I added the following sentence to the section on Human taxonomy, unaware of the prior edit history:

"In 1959, W. T. Stearn designated Linnaeus to be the lectotype of H. sapiens."

Note the third reference to the ICZN web site where David Notton and Chris Stringer says things like (my emphasis) This was enough to designate Linnaeus as a (Article 74.5), Carl Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), 23 May 1707 – 10 January 1778: The of Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 designated by Professor William Stearn in 1959 (Swedish National Museum, Stockholm). etc.

I don't really care if he's the holotype or the lectotype (or neither -- see 's comments at Talk:Holotype Thus, no validly-designated type for our species exists, or is possible, because we really don't NEED one.) -- I was just going by the sources which were available to me. However, it seems like it might possibly be WP:OR for a Wikipedia editor to make a claim about a specific case and cite the ICZN Code as general principals to back up that claim, even when that editor is an ICZN commissioner. If by the ICZN Code it is self-evident he is a holotype not a lectotype or that there is no type specimen for H. sapiens then there should be sources which should back that up and say as much explicitly, but it seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS to use the code to justify the claim that he is a holotype and the reference should be changed from general sections of the ICZN Code to something which specifically addresses Linnaeus and H. sapiens and whether or not Stearn's designation is valid.

Regardless of whether or not Stearn's designation is valid, I still think it's worth mentioning in the article that he did so and that at least some people for a time agreed with that designation.

Thoughts? I'll see if page watchers at Human taxonomy, Type (biology), Holotype, and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature have thoughts as well.

Umimmak (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If the idea that I am creating a WP:SYNTHESIS violation by quoting the Code turns this into a controversy, then why use this controversial example in the type specimen article at all? If it cannot be agreed upon how to treat it, and if the literature is misleading, then it makes for a very poor example and it might be far simpler to omit it entirely, and leave the discussion for the Human taxonomy page and nowhere else. Usually if there is a controversy, WP opts to explain and cite the opposing sides. In this case, since it is published interpretations of the Code versus the Code itself, it gets pretty messy. Dyanega (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well like I said I don't really care about whether or not he technically the type specimen and whether that would be a lectotype or holotype, but I think the present article on Linnaeus should still mention that Stearn among others  him to be the type specimen/lectotype. Edward Drinker Cope is absolutely not the lectotype but that Featured Article still mentions that  people thought should to be the case. If published sources disagree on whether or not Linnaeus is technically the lectotype then perhaps that information should be removed from Type (biology) but I'm not aware of references we can point to show a lack of consensus in the field on this topic. Umimmak (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm reasonably sure that other people have rejected Stearn's designation, and I'll see what I can do to track this down. I have also just sent a message to the other Commissioners to solicit opinions. It is certainly not ideal for there to be public claims that are not universally supported by the entire Commission. Dyanega (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, the discussion with other ICZN Commissioners has been enlightening; in a nutshell, Stearn's designation is debatable, but not definitively a violation of the Code. That is, it can be considered to stand as a lectotype until and unless someone else comes along to present a convincing argument otherwise. In particular, there is a Recommendation in the Code (not a formal Article, which would be enforceable) stating that one could - under unspecified circumstances - assume that a species may have been based on more than one specimen and designate a lectotype rather than a holotype. This is buried in the very fine print, and rather obscure, but it leaves an allowance for what Stearn did, though not permission or approval per se. Given this, I think I can withdraw my objections, with my apologies for having created confusion. The matter isn't exactly cut-and-dry, but treating Linnaeus as the lectotype would qualify as the status quo. Dyanega (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018
In the second introductory paragraph to the section entitled 'Return to Sweden', change "seven months" to "seventeen months" In the third introductory paragraph of the same section, change "nine-year-old son" to "nine-month-old son"

These changes ensure consistency in the time periods, dates and age relative to Linnaeus and Sara's son Carl, and also correct the impression that the child was conceived two months prior to their marriage! Mammaliman (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:L. Inc. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019
In the early life section, change "learned Latin before he learned Swedish" to "he learned to speak Latin before he could walk." The claim that he learned Latin before he learned Swedish is not adequately supported by the document linked in citation 14. While the author of citation 14 states this as truth, this 'fact' is not verifiable when checked against any of the sources used in that document. 192.139.35.176 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Þjarkur (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Linné's guiding line OMNIA MIRARI ETIAM TRITISSIMA
I don't speak Latin, so basically I Wiktionary every word here, out of pure curiosity, but "tritissima" cannot be found. Strangly, I did see it in Google Book[1 ]. Can someone help me out?


 * I strongly suspect this was a typo for "tristissima". Dyanega (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you Google the phrase "Principium erit mirari omnia, etiam tristissima" you will find it. In effect, he is saying that at the beginning, one may marvel at everything, and even be saddened by this. That is certainly my experience as a taxonomist. Dyanega (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If so, then the current English translation and even the source text are both incorrect. I think the reliability is dubious, then how should we proceed here? Citation needed?


 * Well, here's an update: I just now managed to find a scan of the actual printed text, and the word really IS "tritissima". Taken literally, this would have to be the superlative form of the neuter nominative plural based on the word "tritus", for "commonplace" (the same root as the word "trite"). The translation of the phrase as meaning "The beginning will be to wonder at all things, even the most commonplace ones." is therefore a fair interpretation, but the Latin quote shown in many sources contains the typo as "tristissima". If you want what looks like a proper citable source, I'd suggest this one. Sorry for the confusion. Dyanega (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's great and thanks a lot! Now that one looks reliable.

Homo sapiens asiaticus luridus Redirect
Hi. Why is there a redirect for Homo sapiens asiaticus luridus, and yet there is no article, or explanation for the redirect to point here? What is Homo sapiens asiaticus luridus, and why is it here? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

One of Linnaeus' outdated theories. He had proposed that Homo sapiens consists of four differed types (or subspecies): "the white Europaeus albus, the yellow Asiaticus luridus, the black Afer niger, and the red Americanus rufus". See: https://books.google.gr/books?id=ayZDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT277&lpg=PT277&dq=Homo+sapiens+asiaticus+luridus&source=bl&ots=QshjIYAn0l&sig=ACfU3U04fbTqbId8D2BMl-B7d5lw4AW0gw&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCkefYxsXiAhUM86YKHXG3B0EQ6AEwCHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Homo%20sapiens%20asiaticus%20luridus&f=false

Naturally, using human skin color to determine the type or species is impossible. "The understanding of the genetic mechanisms underlying human skin color variation is still incomplete, however genetic studies have discovered a number of genes that affect human skin color in specific populations, and have shown that this happens independently of other physical features such as eye and hair color. Different populations have different allele frequencies of these genes, and it is the combination of these allele variations that bring about the complex, continuous variation in skin coloration we can observe today in modern humans." Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021
UM... I forgot to add the sources from before but here they are

https://www.doaks.org/resources/online-exhibits/botany-of-empire/linnaean-names https://blogs.loc.gov/international-collections/2017/07/entering-a-new-world-the-northern-travels-of-carl-linnaeus-in-1732/ https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-was-important-scientific-contribution-carl-440269 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1043 http://www.virtualherbarium.org/research/Linnaeus.html Cassius of WWCC (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Where are these references meant to go?  Seagull123  Φ  16:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)