Talk:Carl Linnaeus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

End of Name Controversy

The link to the Swedish article at Wikipedia is as follows. It's rather incumbent on the 'en' faction to fall in line with this.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Linné

And we should write all our articles in Swedish. (In addition to that, all Wikipedians will be required to change their underwear every half-hour.[1])--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Great to have images. However is the image really in the public domain.

[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/ihmfact.html Fact Sheet Images from the History of Medicine (IHM)] says

The Images from the History of Medicine (IHM) database is a catalog of the prints and photographs collection of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The purpose of the database is to assist users in finding illustrative material for private study, scholarship, and research. The NLM does not own the copyright to the images in the database, nor do we charge access or permission fees for their use. We do request, however, that published images include the credit line "Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine."

Since the NLM does not own the copyright to the images, it is the responsibility of anyone using the database, or ordering reproductions based on information in it, to ensure that the use of this material is in compliance with the U. S. Copyright law (Title 17, United States Code).

If the image in the article is in fact PD we need a more precise reference.

-- Di Stroppo

I looked at the "Copyright and privacy notice" page, where it says:
Copyright Status: Most information at this site is in the public domain. Unless otherwise stated, these documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific, educational or personal purposes. However, you may encounter documents or portions of documents contributed by private companies or organizations. Other parties may retain all rights to publish or reproduce these documents. Commercial use of the documents on this site may be protected under U.S. and foreign copyright laws.
If you list the images of someone, it can say "you need permission from xyz" or something. I didn't use these. I think that's good enough? --Magnus Manske

An unused public domain image of Linnaeus is found at Image:Linnaeus01.jpg. --Strangerer (Talk) 11:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mammals

" The group "mammalia" are named for their breasts because he wanted to encourage women to breast-feed their infants. "

Didn't I see this on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? What's the scoop? - Montréalais

I moved the remark to the notes section. Can the original poster come up with a reference for the quote? Even if Linnaeus campaigned against wet nursing, then there's still no reason to believe he picked the breasts as a charcter to name the mammals for because he felt strong about it. This whole article needs a lot more references.Wikiklaas 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I took some time to study the history of this page. I see that the remark was in the original posting, which appeared to be a conversion from another source, but without references to the sources. I think it's time to shake up things somewhat here and shed the bits that are not documented. - Wikiklaas 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a paper specifically treating this subject (Schiebinger, L. (1993) "Why Mammals are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History" The American Historical Review Vol. 98 (2). p. 382-411). It seems that this term indeed was coined to encourage breast-feeding when Linnaeus allied with Niels Rosen in a company against wet-nursing and tried to persuade the women of the well-to-do classes to feed their babies on their own. At the very least, the validity of the conclusions of this paper wasn't ever questioned by other historians of science. Alexei Kouprianov 16:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit Source

Source for my edit: Lucy's Legacy by Allison Jolly, page 70. Cyan 02:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Real Name of Carolus Linnaeus

As I was researching for my Anthropology class I noticed that you have this famous man as born Carolus Linnaeus, and later changing his name to Carl von Linne. There was some controversy over the real name of this man, so I looked it up. On May 23, 1707, Nils Ingemarsson Linnaeus and wife gave birth to a son and named him Carl Linnaeus. I was sure that it was going to be von Linne...a perfectly Swedish sounding name...but the family name was Linnaeus. And his first given name was originally Carl. Just thought I'd let you all know!! Krista Hobbs

Thanks Krista but shame that in Sweden today he's known as Linné and he even has a street named after him in Stockholm - Linnégatan on Östermalm - where I have lived. So what they said then and what they say now does matter but to varying degrees. Ask any Swede on the street what his name is and you will never hear what you suggest - you will hear Linné.

As Linnaeus father entered the seminary at Lund University to become a priest, he needed a surname in order to register at the university. Nils, who was the son of Ingemar, carried the patronym Ingermarsson, but that was not considered a proper surname nor befitting a man of the cloth. The established practice in cases like this was to take the name of the place of birth, often a family farm or village, rewriting it to latin form creating a new surname. As parish priests in Sweden, after reformation, typically were recruited out of peasantry their families and decendants would carry latinized surnames. As the surname was latinized the same practice was also frequently, but not consistently, applied to personal names; where Nils would become Nicolaus and Carl became Carolus.

When Carl Linnaeus was enobled however his name was rewritten to the Germanized style common among the aristocracy and he became "Carl von Linné". The root for all this was the linden tree that once had named the family farm "Linnagården", literally "The Linden Farm". -- Mic 18:39, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Where did you find that 'the same practice was also frequently [...] applied to personal names'? Or did you conclude this from the fact that in scientific publications (which were all in Latin) the name of the author was also most often latinized? Wikiklaas 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about mucking up the name thing; I somehow completely failed to see this discussion here and was under the mistaken impression that Linné was the original form, Latinized to Linnaeus—like Georg Bauer wrote as Georgius Agricola. I hope the way I left it is clear. —Tkinias 17:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: I added a brief discussion of the surname to the end of the biography section to avoid anyone else making my mistake. —Tkinias 17:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be under Carl von Linné? Since that is the name he is most known by and really his proper name after the was enobled. --Dahlis 12:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

He is most known as Carolus Linnaeus by biologists. Most importantly, a simple "Linnaeus" brings instant recognition, whereas "von Linné" will usually elicit a double-take: "You mean Linnaeus, right?"--Curtis Clark 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Here in Sweden he is known as Carl von Linné, nothing else. And since von Linné is the proper name I think it would be the most suitable. --Dahlis 14:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. And in Spanish speaking countries he is probably known as Lineo. And in koollelans language he's known as Linnus... Please, check the Library of Congress and the British Library to see to which name are entries referred to, then ask around the biology departments around the world, the botanical gardens, the zoos, etc. and choose the most common. Then put redirects from the other less common names and spellings. Don't forget all the oriental and arabic names. Jclerman 14:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No you don't check the US Library of Congress unless you make Sweden your 51st state. You. Check. Swedish. Records. Period.

Well he was Swedish and Linnaeus was his name before he was enobled. Calling him by this name is degrading him a bit. Since his enoblement in 1757 its von Linné.--Dahlis 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Degrading? That seems extreme. He published under Carolus Linnaeus, and by that name was he known, even during his life, all over the non-Swedish areas of the world.--Curtis Clark 06:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It hardly matters. He is called Linné in Sweden today. As a Swede I take offence at this arrogant offhanded discussion.

Does anyone feel we degrade William Thomson if we do not call him Lord Kelvin?Wikiklaas 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Last I looked, this site was http://en.wikipedia.org.--Curtis Clark 15:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why the LOC + BL + *.edu sites usage should prevail in this incarnation of the wiki. Jclerman 16:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As there's so much confusion about the name, I added an extra lemma on that topic right under the introduction of the article. I also added references to the works of an author who really studied Linnaeus and was an authority on botany, botanical history and botanical latin and had acces to all his publications, correspondence and collections. Of course I removed redundant remarks on the name of Linnaeus elsewhere in the article. There was one remark in the first line of the article however that's not just redundant:

'Carl Linnaeus, also known after his ennoblement as Carl von Linné, and in English usually under the Latinized name Carolus Linnaeus, the name with which his publications were signed'

This remark is beside the truth. From 1735 up to 1762, Linnaeus name was always printed as 'Carolus Linnaeus' on the title pages of his works (or as 'Caroli Linnaei' in the genetive case, or 'Carolo Linnaeo' in the dative or ablative case). This is the name by which he is still known all over the world, with exception maybe of the Scandinavian countries, as some Swedes cannot stop to emphasize, not just in English. Moreover this is the English Wikipedia. Wikiklaas 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If by "all over the world" do not include France, Germany and Spain, then you're correct! / Fred-Chess 10:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right: 'Bibliothèque Nationale de France' (BNF) yields 105 titles on a search to Linne, none on a search to Linnaeus. Wikiklaas 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

From: Keeler, Harriet L. (1900). Our Native Trees and How to Identify Them. New York: Charles Scriber's Sons, 29. I don't know if the acute accent meaning had exactly the same phonetic meaning in 1900 as now; he specifies "Acute accent over a vowel marks the short sound". (SEWilco 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

"It is interesting to recall that Lennaeus, the great botanist, derived his name from a linden tree. His father belonged to a race of peasants who had Christian names only, but having by his personal efforts raised himself to the position of pastor of the village in which he lived, he followed an old Swedish custom, common in such cases, of adopting a surname."

"A very beautiful linden tree stood near his home, and being something of a botanist himself he chose Linné, the Swedish for linden, and called himself Nills Linné or Nicholas Linden. When his famous son Carl became professor of botany at the University of Upsala, his name Linné was translated into Linnæus, as we know it to-day. But when the king of Spain conferred upon him a patent of nobility it was given to him as Count von Linné or Count of the Linden tree."

Sadly, much of this is wrong. The "old Swedish custom" was to use a given name and a patronym, hence Nils Ingemarsson. To call the given name a "Christian name" is ironic in this context, since the advent of Christianity in Sweden centuries before was one of the factors that led to the use of family names instead of, or in addition to, the patronym. And Linnaeus was the original form, changed to Linné after Carl's ennoblement.--Curtis Clark 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Linn or Lind

I gave a summary of Stearns account of Linnaeus' name. It may be that the Swedish name for the Linden tree is now Lind but Stearn says:

The family possessed a property in Småland called Linnegård after a big and aged linden tree (Tilia), linn being a now obsolete Swedish variant of lind.

I'm not an expert in Swedish or obsolete Swedish; I just summarize an authoritive article and please do not change a summary without checking its source first. - Wikiklaas 17:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to get both 'linn' and 'lind' in there, I suspected they were related somehow, although I believed linn to be a dialect name of the tree, rahter than an obsolete name, seemed plausible to me, considering the alternative of hunting down that book ;) -Obli (Talk)^? 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's another source on the internet (from the Linnean society of London: http://linnean.org/index.php?id=47), also with a reference to Stearn, by the way, this time in combination with Bridson, stating, under 'Origins of the name Linnaeus': 'linn' is a Småland dialect for 'lind'.

Redirect: another name related issue

Could someone please put a redirect from Linné and von Linné here? I had trouble finding Linnaeus, wasn't expecting the latin name for a Swedish guy.

You can do so yourself. Simply create the appropriate red links (as I have done above), then place the text "#redirect [[Carolus Linnaeus]]" in the edit box and save. -- Cyan 00:05, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Didn't know that, thanks. I guess I should do Carl von Linné too. Ok, that one was there already.

Referring to L. by initial

"Linnaeus is the only human being customarily referred to by a single initial."

This may seem a bit persnickety, but this seems open to question. The "M" and "Q" of James Bond are readily recognised by a great number of people, despite there referring to a fictional character. Many people also recognise the "C" in "B.C" when reading history books.

Additionally, there may be people who are customarily referred to by a single initial within a local or temporary context. In fact, when the identity of the person being referred in this way to is made clear by the context, the practice of using a single initial occurs with no explanation, indicating that it is a readily understood method of naming a person. RichS 09:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Author names are being standardized against Brummitt and Powell’s Authors of Plant Names (1992). Some names are unambiguous and have been easy to standardize - Linn. has been converted to L., Fern. to Fernald, T. & G. to Torr. & A. Gray, and H. & A. to Hook. & Arn. - but others have required careful checking in the original literature. For example, determining which ‘Gray’ is the author of a name: is it S. F. Gray, A. Gray, J. R. Gray, or one of 10 other Grays? (94 percent of authors names have been standardized)." Jclerman 02:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What to think about 'Z' for Zorro? Wikiklaas 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to think of Zorros, Ms, and Qs. Johann Christian Fabricius in zoology is usually encoded with F.

Removed Comment

I removed the comment below. This is a famous quotation from another Swedish poet, Erik Axel Karlfeldt, about the fictional character Fridolin. Of course, Tegnér may have quoted Karlfeldt when writing about Linnaeus, but it seems more likely that this is a misunderstanding.

• Linnaeus was said to be a man of great social skills. Esaias Tegnér said about him that "he talked to peasants in the words of peasants and to the scholars he talked in Latin".

Bvalltu 10:13, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just a notion: One of my lectors who is one of Sweden's most famous experts on Linnaeus claims that Fara's book is highly unreliable and that it contains lots of misunderstandings. --81.225.24.134 03:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

"The last strikes us as somewhat odd, but the theory of evolution was still a long time away— and indeed, the Lutheran Linnaeus would have been horrified by it."

Should there be a clarification of "Lutheran" here? In modern times in the Nordic countries, the Lutheran faith is perceived as being quite open and liberal. However, in the US I believe Lutheran can mean several more conservative things, depending on which particular Lutheran church the reader has been in contact with. In addition to this, the Nordic Lutheran churches at the time were probably quite different from the ones we have now.

I don't have the necessary sources to determine this, so someone else will have to look into this. Another option would be to remove the quoted part entirely, since it is a bit speculative. --130.232.120.145 23:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's speculative. How do we know CL would have been "horrified" by Darwin's theory? Unless there is some evidence he reacted to early evelutionary ideas, this should be removed. Also, seeing minerals as part of a Kingdom of classification is not odd if "Kingdom" is seen as a separate realm, as he evidently did.

Concept of races

Not everyone will go to the page about races, so it should be explicitely stated in this article that the concept of races has been completely overthrown. The word skewed refers only to Linnaeus's understanding of races. --Eleassar777 23:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I assume your motivation is to fight against racism, which is a very worthy cause, and you have my full support for this cause.

However, I think your edit is not helpful for this cause, and it contradicts Wikipedia policy for the following reasons:

• This is an article about Carolus Linnaeus, not about general concepts of race. Race only should be discussed here with regard to Linnaeus's understanding of races.
• The general discussion about race, and about the validity of this concept, is already covered in the appropriate article race.
• The article race does not support your point of view "that the concept of races has been completely overthrown".
• That statement is therefore a personal point of view, which should not appear in a Wikipedia article. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [2]

Please note that I am not arguing for the opposite of your statement. All I am saying is that this article should be written such that the controversy remains on the appropriate place. For the purposes of Wikipedia, no point of view is better than a, however laudable, personal point of view. This is in compliance with NPOV policy, which states:

The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state [...] that any particular view at all is correct.

Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views.

Please, let’s not start a Reversion war. From Edit war:

"Reversion wars" between two competing individuals are against Wikipedia's spirit, reflect badly on both participants.

As a compromise, I would agree if you wrote “controversial” instead, even though I still feel that this carries a POV discussion on the wrong page.

I, too, am strongly for equal rights and equal opportunities and I believe the fight has to go on. In fact, my belief is so firm that it does not depend on biologic definitions. My conviction will not change, regardless of what differences science may find. I believe that those who close their eyes to reality always will fail in the end. We need to keep our eyes open, and not act with kneejerk reflexes when we see certain trigger words.
Sebastian 01:25, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I fail to see how Equal rights and oppurtunities has ANYTHING to do with the taxonomic classification of the races of man? Just because someone wants the idea of race to be discredited does not mean that it is. As with a previous comment, the race link provided seems to contradict your statement here. I absolutly advocate eliminating the line about the concept of race being discredited, since it is in fact POV, and not scientific fact.

Also, "My conviction will not change, regardless of what differences science may find." has no place in an intellectual discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.42 (talk • contribs)

Seems like "race being discredited" deserves some replacement rather than outright removal. --JereKrischel 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Colleagues, I am sorry I interrupt this important scholarly / political discussion, but the whole part on Linnaeus's concept of race is anachronistic, because Linnaeus himself did not have the concept of race. Period. As I argued somewhere before he never used the concept of race, but rather called all subspecific divisions varietates (varieties), whether we like it or not (botanists probably, would find this embarassing because for them variety still means something from the perspective of ICBN, and they, probably, would not be happy to mix the varieties, as ICBN governed infrasubspecific taxa, with the old-fashioned Linnaean varietates). The whole chapter has to be rewritten to somehow reflect the contemporary views of variations present in the human species, and not the more recent (and now discredited, I hope, or controversial, at the very least) concept of race, which, most likely, was not formed until the advent of the 19th century. What I say about varieties in Linnaean original works can be easily confirmed by anyone who takes the trouble to find the Systema Naturae on the web (there is plenty of places where the pages are reproduced photographically). Alexei Kouprianov 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Someone should write what creatures did Linnaeus classify. Did he classify bacteria? How did he classify them?

Frankly I don't know. However they were only "found" by Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723) - but I understand he did little about his "find". Carl von Linné's life (1707 - 1778) overlapped with his and I wonder whether he knew of Anton's discovery? He may not have even known of bacteria! Osborne 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of taxa Linnaeus classified

Can someone provide numbers on how many animals/plants etc Linnaeus himself classified? Phaust 07:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

12,100 in the 10th edition, probably more in the 1766 edition jimfbleak 16:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the number of annimals Linnaeus named. According to W.T. Stearn, in his introduction to the Ray Society Facsimile edition of Species Plantarum (1957), p. 156 (The Species-Concept of Linnaeus), Linnaeus named 7700 species of plants. Nota Bene: it reads named, not 'described', not even 'classified'. Linnaeus was the first to use binomials consistently, throughout his work, at least as of the first edition of Species plantarum (1753), which is why so many names are attributed to him (as of 1905 it is officially the starting point for nomenclature, so even binomials that were published before and repeated by Linnaeus, are now attributed to him). He did not discover or first describe that many species. His aime was to create a world-wide flora and he used books of many botanists to take his species from. Linnaeus himself estimated the total number of plant species on earth to be around 10,000, so in his own vision he nearly finished the work in his lifetime. Wikiklaas 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin to English

The quote about "if I had called man an ape, or vice versa" has been floating around for a long time and I finally found the original Latin letter to Gmelin on The Linnaean Correspondence. Now, while I don't read Latin, I suspect that the english version is a bit paraphrased... Can someone provide a good literal translation? -- Limulus 12:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I started a thread about it on talk.origins -- Limulus 23:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I just did a rv back to the last version I uploaded, namely:

--- In a letter to Johann Georg Gmelin dated February 25, 1747, Linnaeus wrote:

Original Latin Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim, sed homo noscit se ipsum. Removeamus vocabula. Mihi perinde erit, quo nomine utamur. Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis.

English Translation It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of the discipline [of Natural History].

---

Please comment here before changing it and justify why your translation is better than the one produced on talk.origins -- Limulus 05:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) -- Limulus (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet! Osborne 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving a comment

In my opinion this translation is a bit interpretative, making it sound more personal (why is it "not pleasing to me" instead of "not pleasing (to others)"?) and emotional than the original text, and somewhat inaccurate (the verbs vocassem, debuissem are pluperfect: "if I would have called", "I should have (done so)"). One of the more literal translations I've seen in that thread on TalkOrigins looked more appropriate to me. How did this one end up here? Iblardi talk) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Noscit, as in Nosce te ipsum expresses the process of learning to know, not the actual knowing. "Man is intimately familiar with himself" is not a good translation. Iblardi (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the issue here as not with the translation (you make good points) but with sourcing it. Translation is one of the few areas of Wikipedia that admits to original research, since entire articles on one language's Wikipedia may be translations of articles on another. Nevertheless, this article currently cites, and quotes (although I haven't compared with the original), a translation. It is bad editorial practice to change a quote.

I see three options: (1) leave the existing translation, (2) substitute another sourced translation (such as the one you mention on TalkOrigins), or (3) unsource the translation, and translate it yourself. Option 3 seems the least desirable, as any editor could modify any part of it in the future, for good or for ill, only the edit history would preserve the original, and many of us with the article on our watch list are not good enough scholars of Latin to evaluate any but the most blatant changes. I have no problem with option 2, but you might want to post it here on the talk page for comment (if anyone cares) before substituting it in the article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did comment on this talk page before making any adjustments, but I got no reaction. I understand your concerns, but when I see obvious errors I am inclined to correct them myself rather than go looking for an existing translation first. I have made earlier adjustments to this text, and I am not sure if I can find a decent 'source' to refer to. Of course, I could provide my own source by posting in that thread on TalkOrigins.com, but what does that really add to my credibility?

As for the bad editorial practice, the reference was a-specific and only gave a link to a discussion, not to a specific passage, and for that reason I didn't bother to change it. The translation appears to result from a compilation of several suggestions in the thread, not a direct quote.

Maybe it helps to mention that I have contributed a partially revised translation before at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fourth_Crusade#Innocent_III.27s_comments_on_the_capture_of_Constantinople, which was accepted. Iblardi (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cover of Systema Naturae"

The image is probably the title page of the book, and not the cover, right? The caption should be changed, if so. --Cam 01:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ennoblement

In the article, it is stated that the year of ennoblement is 1757. Where is the source for that year? In the introduction to the Facsimile edition of Species Plantarum (Ray Society, 1957), William Stearn writes it's 1761 (p. 14). Or did it take the special committee 4 years to grant him his title after the King ennobled Linnaeus? If there won't be a source for that date, I'll change the year in the article. Wikiklaas 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He was ennobled by the king in 1757, but it apparently needed confirmation by the Council of State (Riksrådet), which for some reason happened only in 1762 (not 1761), according to the article on Linnaeus in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (the Swedish counterpart of the ODNB) by Gunnar Eriksson, one of the leading Swedish historians of science. Note that this is the so-called Age of Freedom in Swedish history when the king had very little power. up◦land 18:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Although Gunnar Eriksson is a leading historian of science i doubt that is right in detail in this case, myself being a Swedish history interested LL.M. The right to enoble has in Sweden been in the Regents personal fons honorum as long as it was praticed. It has never needed the approval or consent of any other body of the government. However, to be a proper Swedish noble, with full prerogatives, one would need introduction at the Swedish House of Knights. It often took some time from the moment where the enobled got the letters patent from the Regent until the introduction took place at the House of Knights. This was due to different factors. Mainly, the House of Knights demanded a substantial fee for the introduction. Not everybody could afford or wanted to pay this at once. At other times, when the nobility thought that the Regent had practised enoblement in to large scale, they were also reluctant to make new introductions, althoug they in theory had no power to block them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.248.5 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very usefull and to-the-point information. Indeed I already read about the 'Frihetstid' (1719-1772) but I did not realise the consequences. Thank you Uppland. - Wikiklaas 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Binomials and species names

In the article, section biography, in the discussion on Systema naturae it reads:

In it, the unwieldy descriptions mostly used at the time, such as "physalis amno ramosissime ramis angulosis glabris foliis dentoserratis", were replaced by the concise and now familiar "binomials", composed of the generic name, followed by a specific epithet, e.g. Physalis angulata. Higher taxa were constructed and arranged in a simple and orderly manner. Although the system, now known as binomial nomenclature, was developed by the Bauhin brothers (see Gaspard Bauhin and Johann Bauhin) almost 200 years earlier, Linnaeus may be said to have popularized it within the scientific community.

The species names were certainly not replaced. Linnaeus called his binomials 'nomina trivialia'. The 'real' species name to him was the 'unwieldy' phrase name. The advantage of the nomina trivialia was, apart from being short, that these binomials were essentially constant, where the phrasenames often had te be changed when new, related, taxa were found and the old differential characters no longer sufficed to distinguish between species. Linnaeus was the first to use it consistently throughout the work, also in monospecific genera.

I don't know the history of this particular lemma (on the Systema naturae), so I don't know who wrote it. But I guess it was someone who never saw the first edition of Systema naturae. I did. The first edition consisted of only some (about 8-10) pages. Very large pages, by the way. But Linnaeus only gave a kind of summary of the three kingdom's of nature (plants, animals and minerals) on those pages. Of most plant genera, he gave only a genus name, not the species and certainly no descriptions. The first edition of Systema naturae is not a good example to set out the advantages of the binomial names. The first edition of Species Plantarum (1753) is a good example. I'm planning to add that major event to the biography. Wikiklaas 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the polynomial was a central part of Linnaeus's research program. Linnaeus was one of the last truly scientific creationists, and one of his interests was to determine which were the species originally created by God. For each species, he provided a genus, giving the general classification of the species, and a differentia that told how that species differed from other species in the genus. The nomen trivialis, now called the "epithet", was evidently originally a mnemonic, to help students and others remember the differentia.

I learned all this years ago from Stafleu, F. A. Linnaeus and the Linnaeans. The spreading of their ideas in systematic botany, 1753-1789. Utrecht: Oosthoek. 1971. xvi+386 p. One of these days I'm going to check the book out, make sure that I remember correctly, and add some of this to the article.--Curtis Clark 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, a new version of the story on the origin of nomina trivialia can be found in an excellent monograph by Lisbet Koerner Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Harvard University Press (December 17, 1999) ISBN: 0674097459. I'd like to stress also that nomen triviale was not the whole binomen but just the single word or a couple of words (like bursa pastoris) printed on the margin of the page next to the description of species in Spec. Plant. and Syst. Nat. (from 10th edn. on).

It is a commonplace among the zoologists that there were no works in zoology consistently using nomina trivialia before Syst. Nat. 10th ed. (1758). I never saw the 9th edn. but the 8th still lacks nomina trivialia (though it looks already very much like the 10th edn. and quite unlike the tabular layout of the 1st). The earliest works by Linnaeus himself and his immediate pupils where the nomina trivialia were used date back to the mid 1740s (some travel reports and Pan svecicus, 1748: a fully binomial catalogue of Swedish plants with indication on whether they are eaten by cattle or not). If you like, I can present a sort of a short story on the invention of binomials but being not quite sure about my English I'm a bit hesitant to add it boldly to a constantly debated and improved article. Maybe I'll better try in the discussion part? Alexei Kouprianov 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Add it here and we can fix it. Then you can copy it into the article under your own name.--Curtis Clark 20:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Invention of Nomina Trivialia: The Basis for Binomial Nomenclature

-- Draft begins --

By the time Linnaeus started his reforms, plant names usually consisted either of a generic name alone, or, if a genus consisted of many species, of a generic name and a phrase (differentia specifica). Linnaeus thoroughly revised the practices of formulating the differentiae. He tried to eradicate everything that he considered "useless rhetoric" or that cannot be seen on the plant itself (like the name of a botanist who was first to describe the plant, or the place where the plant normally grew). He carefully selected the terms used for plant description and invented many of them de novo. This allowed him to reduce the number of words in the differentiae to no more than twelve (for six main parts of the plant he recognised and six adjectives characterising them). In other respects, Linnaeus's practices of naming the plants remained basically the same as in the previous generation of botanists such as Augustus Quirinus Rivinus or Joseph Pitton de Tournefort.

Page 105 of the 1767 edition of Systema Naturae. Note the nomina trivialia to the left of whale species descriptions.

However, even when shortened, the phrase names were difficult to use as a quick reference tool. First, they were long (occasionally, the differentia could have consisted of a single word if it were an adjective aplicable to the whole plant, but this was rather an exception than the rule). Secondly, they were unstable, for differentiae were to be adjusted and reformulated to retain their differentiating function as newly described species were added to the genus. At first, Linnaeus and his pupils used a numerical nomenclature referring to species by indicating the generic name and the number under which the species was listed in Flora Svecica or Fauna Svecica. By the mid 1740s, they started experimenting with a new reference tool, the nomen triviale. Nomina trivialia appeared for the first time in an index to the description of a journey to Oland and Gotland (1745), and then in Pan Svecicus (a fully binomial catalogue of Swedish plants with indication of whether they are eaten by cattle or not) (1749).

The nomen triviale was usually a single word or a stable two-word phrase, sometimes an ancient name of a plant Linnaeus rejected for other reasons (as in Capsella bursa-pastoris, where Bursa pastoris is, in fact, a two-word generic), sometimes something quite inappropriate as a true differentia, like colour, or smell, or country of origin, and sometimes a plant of similar habit or aspect that could serve as a mnemonic (such as ilex for Quercus ilex). There were just two rules, which were strictly observed: First, the nomen triviale should ne unique within the genus, and second, it should not be changed. For the first time, Linnaeus used the nomina trivialia consistently for all species of plants in Species Plantarum (1753) and for animals and minerals in Systema Naturae 10th edition (1758).

In his systematic treatises, Linnaeus put the nomina trivialia on the margins of the page. They should have looked like flags helping the reader to find the animal, plant, or mineral in question (interestingly, unlike the differentiae, he used them even for the genera with a single species). The habit of placing the nomen triviale behind the generic name as we do today was not a common practice until the end of the 18th century.

-- draft ends --

It looks longer than I expected and does not fit well with the original text of the article (,aybe it deserves a separate section). There are some other things to add or correct in the biography section anyway but I'll postpone it to some later date.

Tenses, commas, and articles are not my best friends. :( I'll be most grateful for comments and corrections. Alexei Kouprianov 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice job. I think it is important for this to go into the article; I'll have to think about where.--Curtis Clark 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it. You are right in pointing out that it does not fit in all that well in the existing text, but that is a different issue. Some points:

• "The nomen triviale was usually a single word or a stable two-word combination, ..." I don't like the "two-word combination" as "combination" in botanical nomenclature has one particular meaning (a generic name plus an epithet). I am not sure what I would use, perhaps a "two word phrase" a "two part term". I think I would rewrite: "The nomen triviale was usually a single word. However, in some cases it could consist of more than that, as when he reused existing two-word names or when he combined a word and a symbol. An example of a reused generic name is Capsella bursa-pastoris, where Bursa pastoris is, in fact, a pre-Linnaean generic name. A nomen triviale could be not only a reused name but also a feature inappropriate as a differentia, like colour, or smell, or country of origin; it could also be a plant of similar habit or aspect that could serve as a mnemonic (such as ilex for Quercus ilex). "
• "[...] where Bursa pastoris is, in fact, a two-word generic name", or perhaps "a two part generic name". Or follow the rewrite suggested above.
• "... in the margin ..." ?
• I would use nomen triviale throughout rather than translate some of the time.
• I may have minor points later, but enough for now. Brya 06:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for corrections and comments. Even though I doubt that we bring much of a confusion using combination, I agree that this point, probably, should be clarified. If so, I would prefer to rephrase it as "a stable two-word phrase" ... "where Bursa pastoris is, in fact, a two-word pre-Linnaean generic".

By "in the margin" I meant that the nomina trivialia were located in the part of the page I used to call margin (to the left or to the right from the text-block). Take a look at the Syst. Nat. ed. X at the Digitalization centre of the Goettingen University Library or Syst. Nat. ed. XII and Spec. Plant. at Gallica. Actually, I do not know how to call it otherwise. At the very least, it is a rather non-controversial and economic way to describe their position. I can't check right now (my library is at home while I am at the office) but, as far as I remember, Linnaeus himself referred to this part of thepage as to a margin.

On the other hand, I would boldly erase the family from the Linnaean hierarchy because he never used the term in its modern sense. See family (biology) at wiki for details. Alexei Kouprianov 13:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I see I expressed myself poorly. I merely intended to point out that "in the margin" looked a better phrase than "on the margins". Still I am not entirely happy with this as "in the margin" strictly speaking refers to that part of the page that is outside the printed part. I am not really certain what would be the technically correct way to describe this. Perhaps:

"In his systematic treatises, Linnaeus placed the nomina trivialia not in the text itself but offset from the differentia specifica. This made them stand out as markers helping the reader in finding the plant in question. It is noteworthy that in the case of monotypic genera (genera with a single species only) he did not use differentiae, but he did assign nomina trivialia to the (single) species."

A picture would be a good idea. And indeed, Linnaeus did not use "family" as a rank. Brya 15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think of "in the margin" being outside the main printed area of the page, but that doesn't mean that nothing is printed there, and indeed I've always referred to the names being "in the margin". It would be interesting to know how the typesetter arranged it--did he add wooden spacers to all the lines without "nomina trivialia"?--Curtis Clark 15:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can take a picture of a page from Syst. Nat. 12th edn. (we've got a copy of it in the Department for Invertebrate Zoology) and place it in the Commons. The picure will be worth a dozen of our lenghty descriptions. There is a number of places on the web where we can find the images of Syst. Nat. 10th edn. or Spec. Plant. but I assume we can not use them for copyright reasons. The faximile edition of Syst. Nat. 10th edn. and Spec. Plant. are probably copyright protected too. Alexei Kouprianov 15:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The book appeared to be the 13th edition. I think it still meets our needs. Alexei Kouprianov 19:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the picture. To emphasize that nomen triviale throughout is better than translating this occasionally: see trivial name. Brya 09:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomen triviale correction accepted.

On the other hand, I would restore varieties as a rank in the Linnaean hierarchy. There is a whole chapter on varieties in Philosophia botanica. Linnaeus was proud of the fact that he managed to reduce a great number of varieties spawned by the horticulturalists to the stable species. A German Historian of Science Staffan Müller-Wille wrote a dissertation and a book partly dealing with the concept of variety in Linnaeus's writings. I'll check it but I'm nearly sure that the taxa within the species Homo sapiens were varieties in Linnaean sense. Alexei Kouprianov 10:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As to varieties, we are dealing with several different sides of the matter. Linnaeus did use taxa below the rank of species, but unlike the other ranks it was not an obligatory rank (for many species there is no subdivision). So there are several aspects:

1. What are they called in the Systemae Naturae and the Species Plantarum? The internal evidence.
2. What are they called in Linnaeus' other works? The external evidence.
3. For plants, the ICBN now calls them varieties.
4. For animals, the ICZN now calls them subspecies.

This makes it not easy to phrase this exactly, and without being misleading. Brya 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Internet-based Linnaeus course

I received this notice on the Taxacom email list; I am not associated with it in any way, and in fact would like to take it but don't have the time. I'm hoping one of the other editors would be interested, and bring back more information for this article.--Curtis Clark 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Linnaeus' Life and Sciences

For your information:

INTERNET-BASED LINNAEUS COURSE - APPLICATION DEADLINE APRIL 15!

Uppsala University is giving a net-based, international course on Carl Linnaeus' life and sciences, including his many apostles and their travels all over the world. The course will start September 2, and the application deadline is April 15. If you or any of your students, colleagues, friends or family would like to learn more about Carl Linnaeus and the 18th century Natural Sciences you are all welcome to apply. Course literature is The Compleat Naturalist – A life of Linnaeus by Wilfrid Blunt (2001 or later editions), and plenty of extra material on the course pages that is only accessible for the students.

More information: http://www.ibg.uu.se/en/courses/linnaeus/index.html

The application form and instructions can be found at http://www.ibg.uu.se/en/courses/linnaeus/2004-11-22_112553_913.html?id=2004-12-10_163700_068 If you have any questions, please contact Katarina Andreasen (Katarina. Andreasen @ebc.uu.se).

Please help us spread information about the course!

Hope to see you on the course! / Katarina

Linné 2007 project

Hello,

A project Linné 2007 was launched on french Wikipédia (here). Would this is somebody be interested to set up the same thing on english Wikipédia ? We can work together...--Valérie75 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Chere Valérie, my French is too far from perfect, so I proceed in English. I read carefully fr:Projet:Linné 2007 page. I'd be happy to join if something of this sort will be organised in English wiki. In my PhD thesis I dealt partly with Linnaeus. Alexei Kouprianov 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

No, this is not a good article. The biography is far too short, has almost nothing about his journeys, nothing on his influence over his students and how he used them for collecting exotic specimens, and far too much about his name (most of which is trivial for anyone slightly acquainted with Swedish onomastics of the period). The "other accomplishments" is a bulleted list of trivia that should either be deleted or worked into the article. Oh, and it has practically no references. up◦land 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And of course most Wikipedia readers are well-versed in Swedish onomastics.

The section on his taxonomy is very thin, though, especially with respect to his essentialism and his strict adherence to separate creation of species (implicitly rejecting spontaneous generation, for example). Perhaps, if fleshed out, it would warrant an article of its own.--Curtis Clark 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the article was listed as a "good article" this morning anyway. How ridiculous! I removed the tag and removed it from that list. Not sure whether adding the {{DelistedGA}} tag is the right thing to do, considering the article was never good and should never have been listed to begin with. up◦land 05:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

category:Creationists

I am sceptical about applying it to this article. Bascially everyone were creationists before Darwin. It would be a very croweded category if they were all added. / Fred-Chess 09:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Linnaeus did not know the concept. One may find his speculations about the creation but he never used the term creationism because the whole thing was invented during the creationist / evolutionist debate much later. It is very much like listing some ancient authors among the recent supporters of the flat-Earth "theory". Anachronistic was the right word. Alexei Kouprianov 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Linnaeus seemed to be the only real biologist on the list. I have long referred to him as one of the last truly scientific creationists, since he had a research program for determining what were God's originally created kinds. Distinguishing essential variation (between species) from accidental variation (among species) has to be a central question of creationist biology, and yet I've seen no modern "scientific" creationist address it.

And it's important to remember that Linnaeus lived in a time when many biologists accepted transmutation of species (e.g. goose barnacles turning into barnacle geese), and it was not until a century later that Pasteur performed the experiments that disproved spontaneous generation, so the belief that all species were created during the creation week by God was somewhat radical.

I think if Linnaeus were to be left on the list, many others such as Cuvier should be added (it would be amusing to overwhelm it with scientists from previous centuries who actually made contributions). But it's important not to discount Linnaeus's creationism. It's an important facet of his view of diversity, and it makes it all the more impressive that we should be using his system two and a half centuries later.--Curtis Clark 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Curtis Clark. Creationism was not created by the further debate about evolutionism. So it seems to me essential to identify the lineages of the idea of creationism. Of course not all the scientists before Darwin should have to be classified as creationnists, only those like Linneaus who put this question ahead of their works. However more than a creationnist, Linneaus was a fixist. Channer 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

History of science is a tricky thing, because it historicises the concepts which form the very reference frame of our discussions. Funny enough, Linnaeus wasn't a biologist too, because biology, in its modern sense was invented after his death (the earliest authors to use it in modern sense began doing so around 1800, and it wasn't a widespread word until much later). Linnaeus himself occasionally used the word biolog, however it meant biographer. Whom he surely was is a natural historian. I doubt that the distinctions made long after the peoples' death have anything to do with them. By the way, I am surprised to hear that Linnaeus was the only one. We can easily list then among the creationists lots of early naturalists, including Darwin himself, putting for a moment aside his agnosticism and paying attention to the last sentence of the Origin (however hypocritic it is). As for the transformist views, one should not forget about the Linnaeus's hybridisation theory, which he developed later in his life. Even in Philosophia Botanica he mentions that some species may arise through hybridisation. On the other hand, he was clearly anti-transmutationist, and he wrote a special dissertation denying the transformation of wheat and rye into weeds (and vice versa). But this does not make him into a creationist in the modern sense of the word, because exactly the same claims (and not without mentioning Linnaeus's dissertation, by the way) were made by perfectly evolutionist critics of Trofim Lysenko, when the latter tried to revitalise the transmutationist views as late as in the 1940s.

So, it would be extremely tricky to put Linnaeus in the context of the current evolutionist / creationist debate, which is largely post-Darwinian in its conceptual and rhetorical composition. Alexei Kouprianov 19:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a matter of choice, but if most people find the word creationnist may be usable only in tne context of the modern debate after Darwin's theory, so make it clearer in the introduction of Category:Creationists and the articles Creationism and History of creationism. Thanks.Channer 03:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While the term creationism was not in common use before the late 19th century, creationists consider their primary source to be the ancient Hebrew text describing creation according to Genesis and see themselves as being the philosophical and religious offspring of the traditions that held that text sacred. (History of creationism, italics added)

In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which conflicts with various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world. (Creationism, italics not needed)

What other statemets are needed? Alexei Kouprianov 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is said "In modern usage, the term creationism has come to...", that could mean that before coming to a modern usage it had a meaning before. Otherwise one should clearly say the word has been created during this very period.

In the other quotation, I don't understand the link between the two parts of the sentence. Wouldn't it be better to put the two ideas separately : " The term creationism was not in common use before the late 19th century... and apply only to those who fight against evolutionist positions." (or something like this) and then "Creationists consider their primary source to be the ancient Hebrew text describing creation according to Genesis and see themselves as being the philosophical and religious offspring of the traditions that held that text sacred." It seems to me useful too to repeat the historical restriction in the introduction of the Category:Creationists page.

It is also said in Creationism : "For example, Abraham ibn Ezra's (c. 1089–1164) commentary on Genesis is greatly esteemed in traditional rabbinical circles and he was a creationist." So how are we allowed to consider Abraham ibn Ezra, as a creationist or not ?

Channer 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate examples of the "pre-modern" usage. I haven't ever seen the word creationism in the 18th century texts. Abraham ibn Ezra wasn't a creationist. Neither was Linnaeus. Could an ancient Egypt pharaon in principle be a nazi? Alexei Kouprianov 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review

This is how the article, as of September 27, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

The prose is a bit choppy in the biography section, with several two-line paragraph consisting of a single or two simple sentences, while it suddenly becomes very thick in following sections. I would generally advise editing the text into logically composed 4 to 6-line paragraphs, which makes reading much easier and helps structurize the content.

In general, I am impressed with the formal English and elaborate sentences, that make reading more enjoyable. However, in some places it seems a bit overdone, while others apparently slipped the copyeditor's attention. A few examples of dubious choice of words in an otherwise superb text:

• "He tried to make something of the botanical garden there" - isn't that a bit too informal and general?
• In the same section, two paragraphs below, two consecutive sentences begin with "this", and the whole paragraph reads seems a bit clumsy with regard to style.
• "Here he earned his one and only academic degree, it being in Medicine" - very sophisticated, but wouldn't it be more reader-friendly to just say "(...), in Medicine"?

There are more examples of phrases that seem either overly sophisticated at the expense of accessibility, or simply quite poor in style. I would ask a good editor to see about that and perhaps do some copyediting to ensure that the article reads really well.

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

The second paragraph of the lead section has nothing to do with summarizing the article, it could become a separate subsection in the article devoted to the influence of Linneus on contemporaries or "cultural references" or something else. And when you remove this paragraph, the lead section becomes far too short for such a long article and important subject.

The existence of the, rather large, top-level section devoted to "mankind" with no assertion of Linneus' thoughts' influence in that field is a bit controversial. Moreover, shouldn't there be a more general section describing Linneus' approach, including his view on the Christian theory of creation, and other principles? Then, the mankind section could go there.

The biography lists at least a few more works than listed in the "bibliography". The description of Systema Naturae is almost the same size as the article the section heading (rather than Template:Main, which would probably be a more appropriate solution) links to, while the other book is dismissed with just two sentences. I would personally argue that the importance and development of those works should be explained in the biography section.

My general impression is that it might be better to organize the content chronologically, explaining how Linneus' theory was developed and how it evolved, along with information on how the reception of those works, and Linneus' recognition in the world, developed.

I also have to agree with the "merge" tag on the "Taxonomy" sections (nota bene - articles with unresolved merge/split tags should not be submitted for GA anyway), as this section is quite long and detailed given that there is a separate article dealing with the topic.

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:

I am not an expert on the MoS guidelines, but the "see also" note should be made using Template:See. I am also not sure whether it can be applied to categories (although a link like that would seem logical).

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

Some words/phrases neither wikilinked nor explained - quarto, treatise, Sexual System (it might not be apparent what it is about to the "common reader"). Overall, the article does not seem abundant in wikilinks, which I believe can be expected of a Good Article, especially on a subject like that.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

Discussed below.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;

Overall, I appreciate very generous use of inline citations in the name and biography sections, although when I see so many paragraphs referenced, I wonder why can't the others be. The other sections, however, go by without citations, and there is also one embedded link appearing out of the blue. I am afraid the inline citations need to be used in all sections, in a fashion similar as in the biography section, and especially with regard to the "mankind" theories and all claims of Linneus "thoroughness" and other virtues. I would also suggest standardizing the formatting of references using Wikipedia:Citation templates.

In the lead section, "father of modern taxonomy/ecology" should be referenced to some source.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

I believe they are.

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

Until referenced, the fragment on Linneus theory being "skewed" in favor of Europeans and its influence (the style suggests it is used until today!) seems OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

See also above, the section on structure

Before writing this section, I consulted my paper encyclopedia, and there seems to be quite more to Linneus than the article would suggest. For example, although it is briefly mentioned in the image caption, there is no word on Linneus being the director of Uppsala's botanical garden. But, more importantly, there issue of Linneus ideology vs. other prevalent views at his time (creationism?) is not tackled, and neither is his further influence in this area.

The section on taxonomy does not summarize Linneus work, but rather goes on to expand on how it is organized today. I believe the most important points of Linneus work should be highlighted, and their influence briefly discussed (both within taxonomy and outside its boundaries). I did not find an exact description of the method Linneus used to classify species (I guess this is quite important).

There is little said about the reception of Linneus' works over time, he had to gain his fame and acclaim gradually, as well as have some opponents. Moreover, if the report of travels were published in Swedish for the general public, did they have any meaningful effect on anything?

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

With other sections so underdeveloped, the one on Linneus name seems overly long, but I guess this will be easily be rectified once the other sections get expanded.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

Actually, they are underrepresented - Linneus' views had to clash with opposing theories, and the mere mention of the letter to Archbishop is not enough. On the other hand, assertions of how wonderful a scientist and scholar Linneus was would do with some references (although I am not insinuating they are not well-grounded in facts).

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

As above.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

No edit wars evident in the article's short history, vandalism seems random. I have just skimmed the talk page, but since the last entry dates back to 1 September, there seem to be no unresolved debates.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

I would link to Lapp from the relevant caption, and the map has a dubious description as to the origins of the image and the free use claim.

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Well, it does not :D

In view of all that, I have to fail the nomination. Overall, the article is clearly not developed enough to be considered for a GA nomination, currently consisting of patches of information, failing on complying with important encyclopedic criteria and, apparently, not comprising the entirety of information that could be gathered at this level of detail.

I hope, however, that it will be developed further, as it is a very important article for Wikipedia. If I were to point to a good example to follow, it would be the current FA Candidate Charles Darwin. Even if that article also has its deficiencies, and perhaps the Linneus article could never contain that much content, the general structure and presentation of content can be a good inspiration for the editors here. I would also like to note that, given the importance of the topic, there would be very little difference between a Good Article and Featured Article on the subject, so I would consider pursuing FA directly without wasting time on the GA tag (which is irrelevant for FA reviewers anyway). Bravada, talk - 01:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Carolus Linnaeus

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Minerals?

What exactly was he referring to when he created the kingdom of Minerals? I thought that he was referring to micro-orgamisms, or was he talking about actual minerals? Some help would be nice, as it isn't entirely clear from the article. --Havermayer 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Minerals means minerals (stones, soils, etc.). Can not be clearer. Microorganisms were classified as genus Chaos (within the Animal kingdom, if I remember correctly). Alexei Kouprianov 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to figure out how to edit the page! But I want to let a more competent person know that there are a lot of ridiculous sentences of sexual content interspersed. I noticed things like, "At the time, most Swedes didn't have penises" and a lot of homosexual references in the next section. Can someone take them out?

Vandalism

There is considerable vandalism about him being "the gayest man alive" etc. Obviously should be removed and I would suggest locking the page to prevent any further alterations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.82.115.193 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Birthday?

A few editors have been changing the birthday around. Does anyone have a citation for what the correct birthday is? JoshuaZ 14:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct date is May 23 (Am sitting in Uppsala right now, and there will be big celebrations tomorrow here). --MoRsE 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday Linnaeus! Sheep81 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter Artedi

At the University of Uppsala Linne met Peter Artedi and they became very good friends, shuldn't he at least be mentiond? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethna (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Citation for difference between races

In the section on Mankind, there is a [citation needed] link next to the claim "Native Americans were reddish, stubborn and easily angered. Africans were black, relaxed and negligent. Asians were sallow, avaricious and easily distracted. Europeans were white, gentle and inventive."

On 8th June 2007 I provided the reference to Systema Naturae where these descriptions were made using the following markup:

<ref>Linnaeus, Carl. ''Systema Naturae'' (1767), p. 29</ref>

This page is available at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ix0AAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA29,M1 if you want to check the contents.

For an unknown reason these changes were undone by KP Botany.

I don't want to get into a revision war, but I believe that this citation is accurate, can someone please advise whether I should reapply my edit, or explain to me why this reference is not appropriate. Bob.firth 06:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the citation appropriate, it's necessary; the translation, although technically accurate, does not make it immediately clear that Linnaeus was assigning the races to the four humors.--Curtis Clark 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added the citation. Many people don't understand Latin so a citation to an English language text would be better, but appropriate citations are never wrong. / Fred-J 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When was he really born?

NExt to his name, it says he was born on the 13th of May. However, later in the article it says that he was born on the 23rd. So which is true or more accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kite24 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know the correct day is 23rd of may, you can also find it on the same article of other languages on wikipedia (expect arabic where it is written 32 may :) ). Khaled Khalil (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Father of Scientific Racism"

Removed the following:

Linnaeus is widely regarded by contemporary scholars as "The Father of Scientific Racism". The charge is that, through his works he bound observable differences in 'race' with uncorroborated discriminatory stereotypes that precisely elevated the European 'race' above the "darker" races. It also made divisions that were biologically and taxonomically unsound, leading (some speculate) to the institution of scientific racism, which persists today.[3]

It is weasely worded ..widely regarded by contemporary scholars... and (some speculate), in addition the link provided is to a student essay - rather lacking as a reliable source. Vsmith 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You were right to remove that ill-considered accusation, Vsmith. It's illogical to ascribe "Scientific Racism" to Linnaeus, considering that he, unlike other scientists, insisted on ascribing the same level of humanity--i.e., membership in the species homo sapiens--to all known races. While his descriptions of cultural differences between the races seem particularly unenlightened by our modern standards, they pale next to the theories of his contemporaries such as Buffon, who confidently asserted that "Negroes have little intelligence" and that "all peoples who live miserably are ugly and badly built."

For Linnaeus, race meant a variation group within a single species. It did not mean subspecies; he built no sense of superiority or inferiority into his classification. When you consider that his critics were indignant that he had even deigned to classify man as an animal, this was a watershed act of intellectual bravery. --Jason Roberts (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Move of article? again a name related issue

Would it be fair to move the article to Carl Linnaeus? Carolus is after all just a Latinized form.

--Fred-Chess 08:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

That was my first thought, too, but if you enter "Samuel Clemens", it redirects to Mark Twain. Essentially all of L's published work is under "Carolus Linnaeus".--Curtis Clark 14:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Any idea how many hundreds of articles would need relinking, have a look at the What links to this Page! jimfbleak 15:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If it were truly a good idea (which it isn't, IMO), it wouldn't matter, since "Carl Linnaeus" redirects to "Carolus Linnaeus".--Curtis Clark 15:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Double redirects form eg Linnaeus? jimfbleak 16:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

(No. Just edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linnaeus&redirect=no to point to the new title. Fred-Chess 11:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC))

No, do not move, as per Curtis Clark's point - all his literature cites him as Carolus Linnaeus - MPF 11:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok points take note of. Before I would accept this, however, I would need to know that this is the most used English name. The name "Carolus" is a Latinized form, supported only by the fact that he wrote in Latin. We hardly use similar forms for other authors who wrote in Latin in that time, such as "Francisci de Verlumaio" for Francis Bacon or "Franciscus Petrarca", for Petrarch or "Martinus Luther" for Martin Luther. What matters is how he is known in the English language today. According to my searches (on google, etc) it seems to be even between the two forms Carolus and Carl, where most provide both forms in any case. I think however, that the most correct is "Carl", first because it was his birth name and the English name, i.e. the name he used when he was in England and wrote in English, and secondly because the linnean society themselves use it: http://www.linnean.org/contents/history/linnaeus_biography.html

Fred-Chess 15:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

When I was a student (back in the late Pleistocene), English-language textbooks routinely referred to him as either Carolus Linnaeus or Carl von Linné, the latter almost always under the misapprehension that it was his original Swedish name. The widespread recognition that he was originally Carl Linnaeus seems to have come from the publication of Stafleu's Linnaeus and the Linnaeans. Even a decade ago, the textbooks I taught from almost never mentioned "Carl Linnaeus". I personally prefer to call him "Carl Linnaeus", but I think "Carolus Linnaeus" is the most stable and oft-used English language form.--Curtis Clark 16:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I just want to assert that he is in Sweden exclusively known as "Carl von Linné", probably because it is only natural to refer to an ennobled person by his ennobled name. A quick look at the interwiki links suggest that some other countries have done the same. Fred-Chess 16:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I guess the best thing to do is to place Carl von Linné under that name in the Swedish edition of Wikipedia then. Wikiklaas 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The page should be entitled Carl Linnaeus. It was his birth name, and the name he normally used for himself for most of his life. It is also the name that biographers and historians invariably use (for these same reasons). If you are doubtful, just refer to the historical literature (other encyclopdias, biographies of Linnaeus, etc.) -- they all use "Carl Linnaeus", and for good reason . The fact that the title pages of his books cite the author as Carolus Linnaeus is a red herring, for these are books in Latin, and so the author's first name must then be Latinized (his family name did not need to be Latinized because it was a Swedish name in Latin form). Admittedly, it is customary for historians to use Latinized names for medieval and Renaissance figures, but that is because in that era the entire cultural personae of scholars were Latin; this practice was dropped for seventeenth- and eighteenth-century figures, in favor of their vernacular names. This case has always been confused by the latinate (but genuinely Swedish!) ending of his family name. Ajrocke 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right here. For example, Darinka Soban who wrote an extensive monography on the correspondence between Linnaeus and Scopoli, titled it Joannes A. Scopoli – Carl Linnaeus: dopisovanje / correspondence 1760-1775. ISBN 961-90751-2-9 COBISS 214056448. I support your proposal to move the article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ecology

sorry, but why does it say that he is one of the fathers of ecology when it doesn't even talk about him on the history of ecology page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.88.127 (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'differerence' in Quote

In a translated quote from Linnaeus in the article is the following sentence: But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general differerence between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. differerence? Should this be 'difference', or is something else meant? Arthena^(talk) 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a typo, yup :) Thanks for catching that! -- Limulus (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity -- why?

Why is this article tagged as being part of WikiProject Christianity? I don't see the relationship. Lacking some reasonable explanation, I'm going to remove the project template from this page. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just lumped it in with the other project boxes and gave him a low rating as he was just a practicing, as opposed to "contributing" Christian. EditorInTheRye (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Revered?

According to the article Karl Fredrik Mennander, Mennander "arrived as a student at the University of Uppsala in 1731 and got acquainted with the revered botanist Carl Linnaeus."

Can someone with more knowledge or reference material than I about Linnaeus (I'm not setting the bar very high) please think about this?

Since Linnaeus was 24 or so when they met in 1731, was he at that time "revered"? I.e, is it premature to say he was revered at that early age?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake...

Fred-J 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wedding portrait =

Wedding portrait of Linnaeus painted by J.H. Scheffel in 1739. Considered scandalous because he is showing some abdominal skin.

This has been bothering me for a while. Where is the "abdominal skin" that's supposed to be showing? All I see is a puffy shirt. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There really is a tiny patch of pink skin showing -- always pointed out by guides. Wilson44691 (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would sooner call that shading that happens to be pink. You'll notice that the same color is repeated in all the folds of the shirt. The most I see of skin is a minuscule sliver of a line that represents the seam. Or do you mean the patch close to where his jacket closes around his chest? Maybe I'm just unobservant. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

His first language

• I read a book that said that so much Latin was spoken in Linnaeus's childhood household that he learned Latin as his first mother-tongue, and later Swedish. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know the title of that book. I've been researching Linnaeus for years, and I've found that on the contrary, he was notorious in his day for having a less-than-graceful command of Latin. The disparity between his prose in that language and in his native Swedish are quite pronounced. However, the misconception that Latin was his mother tongue might have arisen from the fact that his surname was Latin. This had been a deliberate choice of his father, who (like most Swedish commoners of the time) had been raised without a surname. When Nils (Karl's future father) attended the University of Lund, he chose Linnaeus (Latin for "of the Linden Tree"), deliberately adopting Latin as a means of underscoring his status as a scholar.

It ended up being a slightly pretentious name for a man who became a minor clergyman, but it did later suiting his son's academic ambitions. Therefore, unlike scholars like Copernicus (born Nicholas Coppernic) and Erasmus (born Gerrit Gerritzoon) whose names were Latinized later in life, Carl Linnaeus was born with a somewhat-exotic Latin name. --Jason Roberts (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

.svg signature

Several anonymous editors (or perhaps it's just one; I haven't gone back to look at the diffs) have replaced the .png signature with an .svg, and I have routinely reverted it. A .png is effectively a photographic representation of his signature. An .svg, because it simplifies the outline, is in effect a forgery. There are lots of places where .svgs are more appropriate than .pngs, and certainly someone could make a font of his writing (linnaeus.otf?), but a picture of his signature needs to be a picture.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

His names

The current article (as of the writing of THIS comment) begins: "Carl Linnaeus (Carl Linné, Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus, also known after his ennoblement as Carl von Linné ..."

I do not believe this is true or accurate. "Latinized" implies (to me) that the man had a "true" name which was rendered in Latin as something else. I am neither a scholar nor an academic. I am certainly not an encyclopedist. However, Linnaeus is one of my great interests in life.

I believe that only the name "Carolus" is a Latinization (of Carl). His surname is actually Latin. He was a Swede with a Latin name.

"In Linnæus' time, most Swedes had no surnames. Linnæus' grandfather was named Ingemar Bengtsson (son of Bengt), according to Scandinavian tradition. Linnaeus' father was known as Nils Ingemarsson (son of Ingemar)." This is a fairly typical system of patronymic surnames that could be found all over at various times through history. Anyway... most Swedes had no surnames. Some did, most particularly the nobility. Times were changing... rapidly and drastically. And as they did, some traditionally "noble" institutions became available to more people. However, bureaucracies are slow. In Linnæus' time one didn't need to be noble to go to school but one did need a surname to register... and Linnæus' father matriculated at the University of Lund. Therefore, Nils Ingemarssson (son of Ingemar Bengtsson (son of someone named Bengt SOMETHING)) needed to give himself a surname. "In the academic world, Latin was the language of choice, so when Linnæus' father went to the University of Lund, he coined himself a Latin surname: Linnæus, referring to a large linden (lime) tree on the family property, Linnagård (linn being an archaic form of Swedish lind, the linden)."

Nils' name was now Nils Ingemarsson Linnæus. And when he had a son in 1707 and gave his son the name Carl.

So, in 1707, Nils named his son Carl Linnæus... not Carl Nilsson... and not Carl Linné.

Carl Linné, Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus <- I don't think this is true. Anyway, I won't change this article because I am not qualified. But... if the powers that be believe my point to be valid, I hope someone will change it. 70.131.34.227 (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Hank01 (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC) (I wasn't logged in before)

This is very true and very accurate. The man HAD a "true" name, 'Carl Linnæus' which he got when he was born, after his father. Which was rendered in Latin not as something else, but 'Carolus Linnaeus; his name in Latin. The fact that his father give himself this surname and that it was already a latinized form of Linn, doesn’t change anything. The ending –us in old times was very often the academic name in Sweden given to or chosen by any academic person, and used by the person when publishing anything. This is a very common thing in sweden, there is nothing unusual about it. The phonebooks in Lund and Upasla are full of names like this. When you see a name like this you know that the person and his family has an old academic or noble (or perhaps both) background.

Warrington (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true that "Carl Linnaeus" was latinized as "Carolus Linnaeus". Although his surname was already "latinized," his given name "Carl" was latinized as "Carolus." So the statement is correct. But it is incorrect to say that his grandfather Ingemar Bengtsson's "surname was Bengtsson." Bentsson was a patronymic, not a surname. Ingemar's "last name," "second name," and "patronymic name" was Bengtsson, but not his surname. He had no surname. And why is this article locked, so I can't correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Correspondence archive template

German Wikipadia has a template (de:Vorlage:LCL) which is used on over 100 biographies of persons who communicated with Linnaeus. I've translated it, see Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit for an example. As for the syntax: {{LCL|943}} yields: Carl von Linné; Carl Linnaeus/Archive 1. "Correspondence".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (first name is automatically taken from the article name, makes not much sense on Linne's own article). -- Matthead  Discuß   15:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Linnaean taxonomy

"Linnaeus is regarded by some contemporary humanities scholars as "The Father of Scientific racism". The charge is that, through his works he bound observable differences in 'race' with uncorroborated discriminatory stereotypes that precisely elevated the European 'race' above the "darker" races. It also made divisions that were biologically and taxonomically unsound, leading (some speculate) to the institution of scientific racism, which persists today.[17]"

Does this really belong under this heading? It seems a bit non sequitur to me, just reading it. Surely it belongs in a "moderns interpretations", "controversy" or some such heading??? Huw Powell (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is quite true that the implications of Linnaeus' views on race are problematic at best (as were the ideologies of many Nordic thinkers of the time). But the contributions of Linnaeus are far reaching and significant. It is true that the racism issue should be mentioned - somewhere - but I agree that it should be a "controversy" or "issues of race" heading. Hank01 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

hum

now what is wrong with removing the two sentence part in the lead about Linnaeus name? The exact same thing is stated in one or two long sentences just a section down (too long in my opinion). again, WP:LEAD and all that...

Fred-J 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:100 kronor swedish.jpg

The image File:100 kronor swedish.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I switched the image to File:Svenska hundrakronorssedlar.JPG which is CC-licensed -- Limulus (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Name confusion?

He enjoyed long walks on the beach and loved to go to Chuckie Cheese! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.243.22 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to get into an edit war, but it is wrong to say that: In Linnaeus' time, most Swedes had no surnames. Everybody had a surname in Sweden in those times, even those who were called Eriksson, Bengtson, Gustafsson, Tordson, Adolphson Ingemarson or whatever denoting, son of Erik, Ingemar, Bengt, Gustav, Adolf or Tord (or alternatively -dotter, for a women, like Karin Månsdotter (1550–1612), "daughter of Måns"). A surname is a name added to a given name and is part of a personal name.

They often did not have a family name.

A family name or last name is a type of surname and part of a person's name indicating the family to which the person belongs. And :

The name of this scientist comes in different variants: 'Carl Linnaeus', 'Carolus Linnaeus'. 'Carl von Linné', and sometimes just 'Carl Linné'. There is often confusion about his real Swedish name (Carl Linnaeus) and the Latinized form (Carolus Linnaeus) he used most when he published his scientific works in Latin.

There is no confusion about his name. Everything is very clear and it is very easy to understand. But since you removed this part, it is indeed confusing now.

The name of this scientist comes in different variants:

he was born as 'Carl Linnaeus'. The latinized form is 'Carolus Linnaeus' used when he became a scientist, as the scientific language used of his time was the Latin and this was also the name he used when he published his scientific works. 'Carl von Linné' is his ennobled name and he sometimes is mentioned just 'Carl Linné'.

Your edits are making it sounds like it is a big confusion about it. There is no confusion. It can not be the purpose of an encyclopaedia to make things more confusing like they actually are.

Once you have this introduction, than you can go on explaining the different backgrounds of these names. If not, then you are really confusing the readers. there is no need to make things more difficult to understand than they actually are.

Warrington (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I only noticed this discussion entry now. Although I think your differentiation of 'family name' and 'surname' as if they had formal definitions (they don't) is at best contrived, I agree that family name is clearer. There is confusion with Linnaeus's name since its Latinate form is atypical of Swedish surnames and it's natural to assume that it's a Latinised version of a Swedish original. As for your revision, to be brutally honest I find it laboured and ugly and inferior to what it replaced. But thank you for having the courtesy to discuss it! Dickdock (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those nice words. But I think you have to agree that the earlier version which sounded like this, really is confusing.

In Linnaeus time, most Swedes had no surnames . Linnaeus' grandfather was named Ingemar Bengtsson (son of Bengt), following the long-standing Scandinavian tradition of sons' bearing, as surnames , their fathers' given names with -sson appended; Linnaeus' father was known as Nils Ingemarsson (son of Ingemar). Only for registration purposes, for example when registering at a university, did one need a surname . In the academic world.

Do you follow?

They had no surnames but his surname was Bengtsson.

Warrington (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is easily fixed by prefixing 'permanent' or whatever as appropriate, and indeed by using 'family name' as appropriate to add clarity. Dickdock (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I you are unhappy with some other changes I made than just correct them.

Cheers

Warrington (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

When Carl signed with his name prior to 1761 he used the spelling Linnæus, not Linnaeus (examples: a signature from his hand dated 1749 see here http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2006/mar/images/Linnaeus_370_7811_1.jpg, a signature dated 1760 see here http://linnaeus.c18.net/mss_combine/SLS/L-WredeF/L2664-a-150-02.jpg, another signature without date here http://www.plantexplorers.com/explorers/biographies/linnaeus/ ).

I would suggest to acknowledge that the person himself should be taken as the main authority for the decision which spelling of a name should be used and regarded as the correct spelling. Who would have the authority to take the decision to deviate from the person's own choice and spell his name in a different manner?

Title page of the 10th edition of Systema naturæ (1758)

In prints not authorized by himself his name was spelled Linnaeus or Linnäus (usually in the genitive form). But in all zoological publications authorized by himself and printed in Sweden (1735-1775, I have controlled all of them in this concern, I assume that the botanical publications did not deviate), his name was spelled with æ and not with ae. This should be acknowledged and eventually corrected in the article.

The figured title page of the 10th edition "Title page of the 1760 edition of Systema Naturae" should be replaced by the title page of the 1758 edition which appeared in Stockholm (see the image at the right margin), where his name was spelled with æ and not with ae. The figured title page in the article shows the title page of a 1760 reprint of Halle (Germany), possibly not authorized by the author, with a title page that was not identical in orthography with the original print.

For a (public domain!) digitized version in excellent quality of an original copy of the 1758 edition held in the University Library of Göttingen, Germany, see here:

http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?PPN362053006 (this is the source of the image shown here)

I have checked the original and the original copy is identical with the digitized version. This is the true original publication which which modern zoological nomenclature started.

As to the question surname/family name, I agree with the view that there is indeed a difference. The system used for common people in Sweden in these times was the same that is still used today in Iceland. See for example the names of the Icelandic prime ministers Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Halldór Ásgrímsson or Vigdís Finnbogadóttir where this system is correctly explained in the headline. The Icelandic prime minister Geir Haarde had a Norwegian father, so he had a European surname. When attending the University of Lund, Nils Ingemarsson latinized the name of his family's ancestral lands, Linnegard, and adopted it as his family name, Linnæus. This was important for his educational status. This family name was from then on inherited.

The name of his father in the article should be corrected to Nils Ingemarsson Linnæus. Maybe a chapter "name" should be added to explain the history. In any case the name in the first line should be corrected to Carl Linnæus.

"Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus" is not needed here and I would simply delete it. This has the same value as if we write "latinized as Barackius Obama". We could also add "hispanized as Carolo Linneo", "germanized as Karl Linnäus" and various other forms. This would make no sense.--FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus... Please help me!!!

What evidence did he base his findings on?

Please help

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.255.65 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by findings, which ones? Please, precisize what kinds of findings do you mean.. Warrington (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

There is a misspelling in the coat of arms inset: feathuring instead of featuring. --Offchance (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Major Reconstruction of Page

To be honest this article isn't that good. Almost no sources even if there are lots of good books for this subject. As soon as I am done with my other project I'll probably start on rewriting this article and hopefully make it a GA or more. Things I want to improve is among others the general structure and the layout. As it is now it just looks blurry to me.

Is anybody else interested in helping me with this change? If you are please leave a note here or on my talk page and we can cooperate. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

For example I feel that the "Name" section can be better explained with a note. It feels to me as it only exist now to prevent an edit war. Anyone who disagrees? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that it is worded to prevent an edit war, the section is useful, and could be shortened but not eliminated.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is useful since it is a problem, not only in Wikipedia. But I think it might be better explained in a note and does not require an own section. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna fix the whole thing but I can't because it's protected. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User 74.178.230.17: you can edit the page if you register and sign in. That way you are automatically provided with your own talk page, so other users can address you when they feel the need to discuss things. Registering can be done in a minute. See the link in the top right corner of the page. - Wikiklaas (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Curtis Clark. The issue on the name turns up so very often, there should be a paragraph on it in the main article. And yes: I will get involved if this pages is restructured: it's on my watchlist. But let's focuss on the content first. Layout only comes second, as far as I'm concerned - Wikiklaas (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Content comes first. I will write the "life of Linneaus" part for starters (and re-add images etc in it). Then I will try to start working on the "Taxonomy" or "Works" part (if nobody else have started on them). Other problems I have with this page is:

Description of Mankind and Conflict with theological views

• "Description of Mankind" section

AH HA! I figured out why it was written so oddly; that section should have had this:

Main article: Scientific racism

The text in the "Early scientific racism" subsection is VERY similar; I will quote the (better written, though not secondary sourced) passage related to Linnaeus:

---
Carolus Linnaeus (1707–78), the physician, botanist, and zoologist, who established the taxonomic bases of binomial nomenclature (for fauna) and binary nomenclature (for flora), also was a pioneer researcher in biologically defining “human race”. In Natural Systems (Systema Naturæ, 1767) he established five human-race taxa: (i) the Americanus, (ii) the Asiaticus, (iii) the Africanus, (iv) the Europeanus, and (v) the Monstrosuous, based upon geographic origin and skin color. Each race possessed innate physiognomic characteristics: the Americanus were red-skinned, of stubborn character, and angered easily; the Africanus were black-skinned, relaxed, and of negligent character; the Asiaticus race, were yellow-skinned, avaricious, and easily distracted; whereas, unlike the character-imbalanced colored people, the Europeanus were white-skinned, of gentle character, inventive mind, and bellicose; and the Monstrosous were mythologic human sub-races.

The sub-races comprised the “four-footed, mute, hairy” Homo feralis (Feral man), the animal-reared Juvenis lupinus hessensis (Hessian wolf boy), the Juvenis hannoveranus (Hannoverian boy), the Puella campanica (Wild-girl of Champagne), and the agile, but faint-hearted Homo monstrosous (Monstrous man) sub-races, comprehending the Patagonian giant, the Dwarf of the Alps, and the monorchid Khoikhoi (Hottentot). Furthermore, in Amoenitates academicae (1763), Linnaeus presented the Homo anthropomorpha (Anthropomorphic man) race of mythologic, humanoid creatures, such as the troglodyte, the satyr, the hydra, and the phoenix, incorrectly identified as simian creatures.
---

So... should we incorporate that back in and if so, as a separate section or as a mention in an existing one? -- Limulus (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not well referenced at all. IF you can find secondary, reliable sources you could incorporate parts in to the one at your talk page but I don't think we should just rip it right off. That section is even more like original research than the one on your talk page I am afraid. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... what I think I will do is put a link to Scientific racism in the See also and if you want you can go there and mark that they need to add some references. -- Limulus (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I might have found the book where this is taken from. So I'll try to reference it later when I have time. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(now also the Conflict with theological views which was a former subsection) - This part does not need that big quote with footnote which is just another huge quote. It probably needs rewriting. Perhaps the section could be renamed as "Philosphy" or somethign similar and just be about his different views on things.

Conflict with theological views was never part of the original Description of Mankind text; when I created the former, I only put it as a subsection because they both dealt with Linnaeus' writings on humans. -- Limulus (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about the "Upsetting to theologians" subsection, I object; I worked very hard on that. -- Limulus (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because you have worked hard on it doesn't mean it is good. I don't have a problem with the topic and content as such but I just don't feel the presence of that quote there (and certainly not in two languages) makes the article better. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start an edit war; the quote is important and so are the footnotes. Please post any changes you want to make regarding it here in the Talk page first. -- Limulus (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Start an edit war? No, that solves nothing. What I want to hear is why you think it is so important with those quotes.

An attempt to illustrate this: "Linnaeus' research took science on a path that diverged from what had been taught by religious authorities". The original Latin text is not needed in an English language encyclopedia, but adds an original source; I suppose the Latin could be cut back to just the ref without really taking away too much (and if it will help I will dump the text into a footnote in a few moments), but the English should definitely stay. Regarding the "footnote which is just another huge quote" The first part gives background and the second (the "huge quote") is Darwin talking about Linnaeus' classification of humans; is this not what footnotes are for? It provides further insight into the matter as an aside. in regards to your desire to rename the subsection, perhaps 'Conflict with theological views'? -- Limulus (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How is [4] a reliable source? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not the best source, no :) BUT it provided a reference and here it is in Google Books: [5] so I will update that... -- Limulus (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Much better! I'm still not fully certain with all but I don't have more time to dig in it for the time being. Will get back on it later. Also, I'll add your reference correctly. When referencing a book you have to do it a bit different. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, I have looked through it a bit more now. I'll list some problems:

• Sources needs to be secondary sources, not primary (see WP:PRIMARY). Thus Linnaeus, Carolus: Systema Naturae (1767), p. 29 isn't a good source. Please read WP:PRIMARY and act accordingly.

  They can be primary: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care" e.g. we can quote Linnaeus but for interpretation of that we should use a secondary source. Based on your specific ref there I assume you're talking about the Description of mankind section; I don't have objections to that part getting a good overhaul.

  (It would be better to respond directly under my points in the future) Exactly if you have any secondary sources it is OK to back them up with primary sources. However, I do not see any secondary references that states what is written in the section "Conflict with theological views". Can you list those you believe to be secondary? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  ??? Please mark what you feel are the problem assertions with fact tags. Seriously. Fill it with fact tags if you need to have specific parts proven to you, but to me it looks pretty straightforward. -- Limulus (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  So I ask you to show me which of the references you consider secondary and yet you present me with just another question. Is it really that hard to understand? I would like to see which references in the "Conflict with theological views" section you consider secondary. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sources needs to be reliable. [6] and [7] isn't very good sources and won't live up to a FA standard.

  Please note what's going on in context there; for the first, the actual ref is "Linnaeus: The Man and his Work (1983) by Tore Frängsmyr (ed.)" but as I don't have access to that book (update: I found out that I can request a copy of it via my public library system; hopefully I will have access to it in a week or so -- Limulus (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) and its contents are not in Google Books, I am pointing to the excerpt on that page as purporting to have the text of it. If you have access to the book and can confirm that it actually says that, it would be appreciated. Note that if you are comfortable with dropping that link and just keeping the Frängsmyr ref, that's fine by me... (whoops forgot to address the talk.origins link; I would classify that as a primary source; it's where the translation of the quote for this article began 5 yrs ago... if you haven't had a look at it you should. Also, talk.origins, as per it's Wikipedia article, it is "a major venue for debate in the creation-evolution controversy" and so I don't think you can dismiss out of hand -- Limulus (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

  We have the translation in the Gribbin book. That is as good source as it will get. It does not need more sources than that (unless it isn't really controversial which this quote isn't). More will just clutter. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  But Gribbin is NOT the source for our translation, it is an alternate source and that needs to be mentioned... -- Limulus (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  I am aware of that. However, a printed source is best almost all the time. It wouldn't be so hard to just base the translation on Gribbin instead would it? It is saying basically the same thing if I have got it right and it is about as good source as it can get :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Due to the high amount of primary sources the section smell of original research.

  I assume you are talking about the Description of mankind section (see #1).

  I am talking about both. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Footnote n.6 is very long. Try to see if it can be shortened down and brought into the text instead.

  Brought into the text would be a good idea, but I think it needs to be integrated into the Description of Mankind section (if we are keeping that).

  I am OK with keeping it if it can be cited by reliable sources. It will take me a while to get there since that will probably be one of the last section I will work on. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Footnote n.4 with the original latin is probably not needed.

  Probably not, but does it hurt to have it there?

  Yes. It takes up unnecessary space in the article and causes greater load times. Also, if the article doesn't gain anything by it there is no reason to keep it. It is better to focus on the parts which actually the article gains something by. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  While I disagree about greater load times for a small chunk of text in a large article and think that the proportion of screen space used is actually small, your earlier comment about the translation not being controversial actually makes me agree with you on this point. I will remove it in a sec. -- Limulus (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  That quote alone does not really do anything to the load time but if you keep many things like it they page load time might end up getting long. If that is any clearer from what I said earlier... Well anyway, great that we agree at least Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• The section and the quote is full of awkward wikilinks. Who doesn't know what a man is?

  That is "awkward"? Would it be better to link to "Homo sapiens" (which redirects to the same page)? I think by the mere fact that there is a Wikipedia page for it implies that if it is being mentioned it can be linked to; again, does it hurt to have it there?

  Yes. Overlinking kills articles. Wikipedia:Linking#Overlinking and underlinking

  I point to a quote from your wikilink: "Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers." The man article is not just a few words, it is a large, heavily referenced, semi-protected article that gives an overview of our species, which is what Linnaeus was talking about. Your question "Who doesn't know what a man is?" ignores that. -- Limulus (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  But people who click on wikilinks normally would just like to know some short fact of what it is, for example if you link to Palau, people who click on it probably do not know that is a country. They probably do not, however, click on it to know the full history of Palau. Then they would have searched for it themselves. This applies to the wikilink to man as well. If people would like to read that article they can just search for it. The only purpose it serves here is making the part harder to read. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are some unreferenced parts, be sure to add reliable secondary sources.

  Please mark them with fact tags so I know what you're specifically objecting to.

  That is mainly concerning the "Description of..." section. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this will help in making the section excellent! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC) OK, so point by point: -- Limulus (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Students section and Honors section - Students section is not at all encyclopaedic, we'll have to rewrite that one. In honors section I am primarily concerned with the "Linnaeus University" part. It just feels to me it goes against WP:NPOV somewhat.

If you want to help write what you'll do so we can better organise ourselves. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of images

Most of the images from the article were removed on March 29th; on my talk page [8] I opined that scrubbing an article of images and leaving it in that state for an extended period (almost two weeks now) means that "the page is effectively broken until you decide to fix it". The reply was that "I will add the images properly so they improve the article and doesn't ruin it." which I think speaks volumes about Esuzu's... individualistic... approach to editing this article. Images can be easily worked around and who can say when the article will be 'finished' so I am going to add them back in now. -- Limulus (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Call me what you want. I am following the tips of the WikiProject Biography, "Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography#Tips for writing biographies". ( "At this stage, don't add categories or images. (You'll be able to add them later.)" )

Please note that you are NOT following the guidelines of that! First, you are not "Starting from scratch", you are editing an existing article (update: FYI, the Linnaeus article on EN Wikipedia is almost 8.5 years old! First edit in 2001: [9] -- Limulus (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)). Second, rather than "Create a proto-article in a subpage of your own user space" you are just editing the original; you did not "Create a new article on your subject and paste the content of your proto-article there.". -- Limulus (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not following the guidelines, I am taking tips from the page. And obviously I am not starting the article from scratch, noting that is rather pointless. However, before I started working on this article much was incomplete and still is. That is why I consider this a "remake". Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand what I am talking about when I said "I will add the images properly so they improve the article and doesn't ruin it." Images are supposed to be interesting and help you in (or make you) read the article. Not overflow it. When you re-added the images to the article, although I am sure you did it with no ill intent whatsoever, it has become cluttered once again. Another problem is that many of the images squeeze text between them thus making it harder to read, just look at the "Travel and research" section. I hope this explains my intentions better. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What screen resolution are you using? Mine is 1280x1024 and it looks fine to me... if yours is smaller it may be that we are (literally) seeing things differently. I wonder if smaller thumbnails would improve things... -- Limulus (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I just changed all the thumbnails to 170px wide to see if that helps the "clutter" problem. I also moved the map to the right which should prevent the "squeeze" problem. -- Limulus (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I note this morning that Theleftorium alternated some of the images left and right; Esuzu: does that result in "squeeze" on your screen? -- Limulus (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Squeezing has nothing to do with resolution, if images is squeezing the text it will do that regardless of how your screen resolution is set. It is somewhat better now it is still flooded with images though. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It will not do that "regardless of how your screen resolution is set"; e.g. there is a big difference between 20 characters visible between two images and 200. People viewing at 800x600 will run into squeezing MUCH more than someone at 1280x1024. People using the frighteningly large 30" Apple Cinema Display will NEVER run into squeezed text between right and left aligned images since with width is 2560! What is your resolution set to? Is it less than 1024 wide? -- Limulus (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Esuzu. There are way too many images in the article, many of which are useless. Theleftorium 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather discuss actual cases rather than sweeping generalizations: for example Medaille-Linnaeus.jpg that you just deleted; you said "this image has nothing to do with the text" and yet, from the text of that section: "The adjectival form of his name is usually 'Linnaean'; however the world's premier taxonomy society is named the Linnean Society of London, and publishes the journal The Linnean, awards the Linnean Medal, and so on." (emphasis added). Also, the medal illustrates one spelling variant of his name, which is the subject of that section! And it could also be included in the Honors section where it was before... Is that one of the pictures that you consider "useless"? -- Limulus (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the appearance of the Linnean Medal in the text. However, his name is explained perfectly in words. We should really avoid using images for decoration if the article already has so many. Theleftorium 14:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Theleftorium, you just deleted File:Dillenia pentagyna flowers- at Jayanti, Duars, West Bengal W IMG 5364.jpg because it was a "decorative image"; that was added to the article by Esuzu on 05:08, 1 April 2010! If there is anyone who has been against adding 'fluff' to the article it is Esuzu ;) I will leave it to you two to discuss its worth for inclusion -- Limulus (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries, one batch of images that can be culled back is the Hortus Cliffortianus set; I will use the "Commons category" template for that in just a sec. -- Limulus (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First about the image Theleftorium removed,File:Dillenia pentagyna flowers- at Jayanti, Duars, West Bengal W IMG 5364.jpg. I have never intended to keep that image, it was to be removed (but didn't get the chance to, somebody started throwing images all over the place ;) ). It was simply a test of how it would look when the section would be done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"it was to be removed (but didn't get the chance to"??? It was in the article for a week and a half while you were editing multiple times per day! Other people want to edit the article and it's not fair to assume that other people are going to wait weeks for you to finish before they begin editing. -- Limulus (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at the German version of this article [10] (which is rated excellent BTW) and it uses 17 thumbnails... which if you include the scientist infobox with his signature and exclude the (not proper thumbnail) galleries near the bottom of the page in Honors which I haven't quite figured out what to do with yet, is the SAME as here, with a lot of the same images... To me this says that "clutter" is actually the result of a lack of quality text and rather than try to cut good illustrative images, one should concentrate on filling out the article. -- Limulus (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all just let me say that comparing to different Wikipedia sites might not be the best idea; they do not necessarily have the same criterion for a FA article for example. Secondly, as I can not read German I can't judge anything but the images in the German version. They do not indeed clutter but I would not say that the images have a perfect lay-out, far from it. And I am sure many would agree with me (ask a reviewer on the FAC if you do not trust me). Having all images right-aligned is no preferable. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link using Google Translate: [11] The German article is really quite good; I note a contemporary revulsion at Linnaeus' sexual system of plants: 'Who would believe that God has set up such despicable immorality in the kingdom of plants?' (slightly reworked from Google's translation) -- Limulus (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Look closer, that page only has 30-40 references. For such a big article that is way too little. I mean, this article has about 72 references in the "Life of..." section and it is still nowhere near FA or GA. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Specific Images

I would like a discussion of specific images if people have objections/comments about their inclusion. -- Limulus (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Carl von Linné.jpg Note: DE article [12] uses File:Carolus_Linnaeus_(cleaned_up_version).jpg which is possibly better, though on second look appears a bit too retouched. -- Limulus (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Currently in the article's Infobox.

File:LA2-Rashult-2.jpg Same as DE article. Currently in the article: more than sufficient space... -- Limulus (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Carl von Linné i Lund.jpg Statue of Linnaeus as a University student: insufficient space currently to prevent 'clutter'

Space now; readded -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Carolus_Linnaeus_by_Hendrik_Hollander_1853.jpg Same as DE article. Linnaeus in traditional dress of the Sami people of Lappland: insufficient space currently to prevent 'clutter'

Space now; readded -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Karte Linne.png Same as DE article. Currently in the article: sufficient space... -- Limulus (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:CarlvonLinne house.jpg Same as DE article; deleted by Theleftorium because it "is not as important as the others"

I am going to add it back in; can you say why it 'isn't important'? IMHO it's one of (a minimum of) three buildings that we should have pics of; his birthplace and his summer house being the other two. -- Limulus (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is currently no room for it in the article. We have to avoid clutter. Theleftorium 20:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am going to ask you this also: what resolution is your screen? At 1280 wide on mine there is LOTS of room. "Clutter" is also VERY subjective. Also, as the article text increases, the % of images will go down. Please look at the Charles Darwin article, which is a featured article; it has 17 images. Do you consider that cluttered? I want to hear SPECIFIC REASONS why you want it out, not just vague 'there is no room'; you never answered my question can you say why it 'isn't important'? The image thumbnails can be made even smaller if it's just a image to text ratio problem. -- Limulus (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The images in the Charles Darwin article aren't nearly as close to each as they are in this article. The "Linnaeus house" image and the "Wedding portrait", for example, both belong to the same paragraph. MOS:IMAGES clearly states "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." See also Wikipedia:Layout#Images. Theleftorium 21:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently in the article: sufficient space... -- Limulus (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:LinnaeusWeddingPortrait.jpg Note: DE article uses File:Carl_Linnaeus.jpg but I like ours better. Wedding portrait of Linnaeus: insufficient space currently to prevent 'clutter'

Space now; readded -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Linne CoA.jpg Same as DE article. Currently in the article: sufficient space. Perhaps move it under the infobox? -- Limulus (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Made a new ennoblement sub-section; not visible for now as there's not much room for it. -- Limulus (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Linnaea borealis.jpg Pretty and relevant to the article, but not currently used. -- Limulus (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:LinnaeusHammarby.jpg insufficient space currently to prevent 'clutter'

Turns out that picture of his "summer home" was taken in the winter! 8-) switched to File:CarlvonLinne Hammarby.jpg, which is very wide, thus having a small thumbnail, thus having more than enough space! -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:CarlvonLinne Garden.jpg insufficient space currently to prevent 'clutter'

Space now; readded -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:LinnéUppsalaDom.jpg Note: DE article uses File:CarlvonLinne_gravestone.jpg but I like ours better. Currently in the article: sufficient space.

File:Linnaeus_-_Regnum_Animale_(1735).png removed for now

Readded -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:LinnaeusDoorway.jpg removed for now

File:Antropomorpha12c.png removed for now

File:Systema Naturae cover.jpg Note: DE article uses File:Systema_naturae.jpg (1735) but I like ours better. Currently in the article: more than sufficient space.

"Posthumous honors" gallery:

File:Medaille-Linnaeus.jpg Same as DE article. This one can be omitted because we are linking to the Linnean Medal article in the text and they feature it prominently. -- Limulus (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Added back to gallery; in there it doesn't use much space but helps show that Linnaeus is memorialized -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Svenska hundrakronorssedlar.JPG Currently in the article: sufficient space.

Added to gallery to and keep all images in that section together -- Limulus (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Linnaeus_-_RA_London.jpg File:Råshult 1907.jpg File:LA2-Rashult-3.jpg File:Äppeltavlan 2007, Kivik.jpg