Plant Cuttings

This image, entitled “Carolus Linnaeus in Laponian costume; replica of a painting in Estate Hartenkamp” [RKDimages of the Netherlands Institute for Art History] is in the public domain.

Preamble

The topic of this post was quite straightforward – or so I thought. However, once I’d embarked upon researching it, it became like Topsy in Uncle Tom’s cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe, it just growed to be the rather long read that is before you. But, although lengthy, it is an important topic – and one that’s of relevance to botany (including phycology and mycology), and zoology, protozoology, and bacteriology. So, please bear with me and read on…

Binomial nomenclature (background)

The notion of binomial nomenclature (Neha Adikane, Paul McCarney) is probably known to most of this blog’s readers. If it isn’t, then, in essence, binomial nomenclature is the phenomenon whereby each and all species (Neha Adikane) of living things are given a unique* two-word name (Neha Adikane).

The first word of the so-called ‘binomen’ identifies the organism as belonging to a genus (Neha Adikane). The first letter of the genus is capitalised, and italicised, e.g., Agrostis, a grass genus. The second word is known as the specific epithet in botany (for plants, and for algae, and fungi) [or the specific name in zoology] and specifies the species within the genus to which the organism belongs [Ed. – NB, “The second word is not the species name. Both words together are the species name”.] Both words of the binomial are italicised, e.g. Agrostis stolonifera. [Ed. – We won’t here get into the intricacies of how organisms are named – that would be a separate post in itself. But, all the different forms of living things – plants, animals, fungi, algae and single-celled animals, bacteria, and archaea – that have been described (and are therefore known to science) have their own binomial names.]

Binomials are useful

And that dual-naming system has been really useful because, before binomials were used, living things were named by reference to a lengthy description in Latin, a so-called polynomial** (Irene Lobato Vila), which – in a botanical context – “included a single word for a plant (what we now refer to as a genus), followed by a lengthy list of descriptive terms in Latin”**. As you might well imagine, if you only had to remember a binomial to specify a particular organism, that made life a little easier, and saves a lot of time (LeeAnn Kriegh)***.

Binomial nomenclature was so good, with so many benefits, that – to amend Voltaire’s famous quote about the existence of God – if it didn’t exist, it would have had to have been invented. Well, binomial nomenclature didn’t exist as such, it was invented by people. And that brings me to this Plant Cutting, which simply asks: Did Linnaeus invent binomial nomenclature?

So, who invented binomial nomenclature? [see also What next..? below]

I suspect many people – probably myself included on occasion during my lecturing days (and before researching this post) – would have answered that question in just two words, Carl Linnaeus. Indeed, so ingrained in the minds of almost everyone who has heard of binomial nomenclature is the association of Linnaeus with binomials that it is repeated widely in books and freely-available articles on the internet (publication of which perpetuates the belief that it is all down to just that one man, and endorses and reinforces that ‘fact’…). But, I’ve recently begun to wonder if it just down to Linnaeus. Do advances in science really have a single creator? Is it that simple?

Who says it’s just Linnaeus?

For my starting point I’ll take this statement, from Simon Barnes’ book How to be a bad botanist [Ed. – for Mr P Cuttings’ appraisal of this tome see here]: “Linnaeus, or Carl von Linné … was a pioneer in the classification of life … To make it all work in a clear and logical way, he invented the binomial system: that is to say, he gave everything two names” (p. 201). That seems to be quite a straightforward statement stating that Linnaeus invented the practice of binomial naming. With no source supplied in the book we can’t know where Barnes gets that fact from. In the absence of a source we must assume that what is stated is therefore Barnes’ own view. But, is it correct? Read on to find alternative views to Barnes’ bold assertion.

The power of the popular science word

Pre-empting the answer to the question posed in this post, it is worth considering the consequences of published unsupported statements that appear to be facts – using the above quote as an example. Barnes has written a lot of popular science books on biological matters (including The green planet that accompanies the BBC series of the same name) that are likely to have been read by a large audience [for example, How to be a bad botanist publisher’s site proudly tells us that How to be a bad botanist was “Chosen by WATERSTONES as one of their BEST NATURE WRITING BOOKS of 2024”]. Barnes has a very engaging writing style and his words are likely to be memorable – and maybe influential; the chances of his many readers accepting his unsourced statements as fact is therefore high. If this ‘fact’ is incorrect [yes, another nod in the direction of this post’s conclusion], the potential for his readers to be misinformed or misled on this matter is high. Which in turn is likely to cause the binomial nomenclature origin ’myth’ to be widely held amongst the general public – or at least those who have read this particular book – and who maybe pass on that information to others. So much for the potential influence of books, what about other influential published sources? What do they say about binomial nomenclature’s ‘origin’? How might what they say affect the public’s knowledge and understanding of concepts in science?

The view from textbooks

Another important source of information about matters biological is printed textbooks (often the information they present is either un-, or not explicitly-, sourced, therefore the power of textbooks’ authors to persuade their readers of the veracity of what they  have written – for good or ill – is high, and they can be very influential regarding the information that their readers retain, use and repeat). How well, then, do various biology textbooks fare in dealing with this post’s question?

Estelle Levetin & Karen McMahon (in Plants and Society), state: “Linnaeus’s greatest accomplishment was his adoption and popularization of a binomial system of nomenclature” (p. 121 in that book’s sixth edition, 2012). Note the emphasis upon adoption and popularization. Although they are silent on whether Linnaeus actually invented binomial nomenclature, their wording hints at the prior existence of binomial nomenclature, presumably ‘invented’ by other(s).

Thomas Rost et al. (in Plant Biology, 1998) tell us: “For each species, Linnaeus wrote a short descriptive phrase in Latin. He regarded this phrase as the formal name, but for convenience he wrote a single word in the margin that could be combined with the genus name to provide an abbreviated name. Not surprisingly, taxonomists favoured the two-word abbreviated name, or binomial. Today every species is given a binomial, or species name…” (p. 293) [text viewable here]. Although carefully worded, Rost et al. do hint – quite strongly – that it is Linnaeus who invented binomial nomenclature.

Linda Graham et al. (in Plant biology, Second edition, 2006) write: “The system of scientific names, still used today to describe living things, was first described in the book Systema Naturae, published in 1758 by Carl von Linné” (p. 300). Their use of ‘described’ doesn’t necessarily mean that binomial nomenclature was invented by Linnaeus. Such careful wording allows of the possibility that it may have been created by AN Other.

James Mauseth says: “Our system of nomenclature, of scientific names, can be traced directly to Carolus Linnaeus (p. 489, Botany, Sixth edition, 2017). Whilst this statement doesn’t rule out the possibility that binomials could be traced back beyond Linnaeus, it strongly supports the view that binomial nomenclature is Linnaeus’ concept. [Ed. – It should be mentioned that, on p. 490, Mauseth states: “He [Linnaeus] adopted the genera system of Bauhin”. But, since a genus is not a binomial, Mauseth is effectively ruling-out Bauhin as having anything to do with binomials.]

An acknowledgement of the role of others is to be found in Ray Evert & Susan Eichhorn’s statement (in Raven Biology of Plants, Eighth Edition, 2013): “… but in adding an important innovation devised earlier by Caspar Bauhin (1560-1624), Linnaeus made permanent the binomial (“two-term”) system of nomenclature” (p. 234). Evert & Eichhorn clearly acknowledge that the innovation [binomial nomenclature] of another helped Linnaeus with his particular contribution of making the binomial system permanent.

The information about binomial nomenclature and Linnaeus from the – admittedly – few – and botanically-biased – textbooks I checked is a little varied. Some [Levetin & McMahon, Graham et al.] are carefully worded – whilst they mention Linnaeus they don’t necessarily exclude the involvement of other(s), they don’t explicitly state it. At least one – Mauseth – appears to credit Linnaeus with its invention. Rost et al. hint at Linnaeus being the creator. And Evert & Eichhorn explicitly mention the contribution of Caspar Bauhin.

And internet text‘books’

An on-line textbook, LibreTexts’ Introductory Biology (CK-12) tells us: “Perhaps the single greatest contribution Linnaeus made to science was his method of naming species. This method, called binomial nomenclature…”. In light of my further researches [see below], it seems inappropriate to describe binomial nomenclature as “his [i..e., Linnaeus’] method” since others had also used a binomial approach to naming species [see below…]. Elsewhere on the internet, the CK-12 Foundation states: “In the 18th century, Carl Linnaeus invented the two-name system of naming organisms (genus and species) and introduced the most complete classification system then known”. Again, from what I’ve uncovered in this blog, Linnaeus did not invent the two-name system. The conclusion based on this sample size of two, is that on-line textbooks are not correct with their statements in respect of the invention of binomial nomenclature.

What do scientific journal articles say?

An Essay in the peer-reviewed, highly-rated journal The Plant Cell , by David Smyth (2005) is quite unequivocal: “Linnaeus’ second contribution, after classification, was the invention of the binomial system of nomenclature” (p. 331).

What I’m guessing is an editorial piece in science journal Nature, “one of the world’s most-read and most prestigious academic journals” has this very definite statement: “Since the days of Linnaeus scientific zoologists have universally adopted the binomial system of nomenclature, which was invented and introduced by that great naturalist”. Although both the Plant Cell and Nature items make very explicit statements, we need to know what is actually being referred to. Are we talking binomial nomenclature itself? Or the taxonomic system that used binomial nomenclature? The distinction is an important one – as you will find out later in this post.

Importantly, in another scientific article, Judith Winston (2018) acknowledges that others were associated with development of binomial nomenclature, but distinguishes Linnaeus’ particular contribution: “Linnaeus did something revolutionary. Although some of his predecessors had given species two-word names, the second part qualifying the first, they were not consistent in using such binomial names throughout their works. Linnaeus standardized the system almost accidentally”.

That’s just three scientific articles. Depending on which items you read, your view on the identity of the creator of binomial nomenclature will likely differ.

The view from the bloggers

Stephen Heard tells us: “… in the mid-18^th century Linnaeus invented our modern system of binomial nomenclature” (although this statement is unsourced). The emphasis on modern is important because it is the present-day system that Linnaeus is rightly credited with introducing. Otherwise the post is silent on any involvement of others, although doesn’t explicitly preclude that.

LeeAnn Kriegh’s unsourced statement that “Linnaeus came up with the idea of naming things by genus and species, and for that he’s justifiably renowned” leaves no room for doubt that Linnaeus invented binomial nomenclature (although there are concerns about Linnaeus’ sole creation of this – see below].

And, Tessa Smith, at the Tesselations in nature blog, tells us that: “the system of Binomial nomenclature e.g Homo sapiens is probably Linnaeus’s best known contribution to science”]. Which, whilst unsourced – and silent on the involvement of anybody else – strongly associates Linnaeus with creation of binomial nomenclature.

Other on-line sources

Writing in The Harvard Gazette, Alvin Powell states: “Linnaeus’ innovation, first applied to plants and later to animals, was to create a two-part name, today given in either Latin or Greek” (which statement is unsourced). Here we have explict association only of Linnaeus with binomial nomenclature.

Writing for the Encyclopaedia Britanica Inc. site, Staffan Müller-Wille states: “Linnaeus’s most lasting achievement was the creation of binomial nomenclature” (although this statement is unsourced we are advised that the article has been fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica). As worded, this statement strongly explicit in identifying Linnaeus as the creator of binomial nomenclature.

Another unsourced statement comes from the Harvard Museum of Natural History: “Binomial nomenclature, the system used to assign species with their two-part Latin names, originated in the 18th century. Carl von Linné (1707 – 1778), the naming system’s mastermind”.

Several internet sources clearly associate Linnaeus with creation of binomial nomenclature.

For good measure

A fairly matter-of-fact factual statement comes from Sandy Knapp on the UK’s Museum of Natural History site: “So Linnaeus also assigned a ‘trivial name’ for each plant, a binomial name with only two parts. The idea was that this trivial name would be easy to remember and would trigger the memory of the plant’s ‘correct’ polynomial name. The binomial names were so much easier to remember that people soon started using them in place of the ‘correct’ names. Eventually they replaced the polynomial names completely, and became the correct names”. This makes no claim for Linnaeus being the first to use binomials, but adds the important mention of trivial names, the introduction of which – by Linnaeus – was instrumental in Linnaeus’ development of the binomial system of nomenclature.

The published works from the internet considered above show that there are many sources – a lot of which are freely accessible, and several in highly-influential or -regarded publications – that promote the view that binomial nomenclature is all down to Carl Linnaeus. But, is that the end of the matter? No, some of those sources hinted at the involvement of other(s); others were quite definite on that point. What additional sources are there that explicitly mention the contribution of others in the development of binomial nomenclature?

Not Linnaeus – an alternative view

Notwithstanding those endorsements above – some more enthusiastic and explicit than others – of Linnaeus being ‘the man’ when it comes to binomial nomenclature, and acknowledging that progress in the development of ideas in science is usually by small, incremental, bit-by-bit advances, with one person adding to, and developing the work of others that went before [Ed. – think of the quote attributed to Isaac Newton about ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ quote (Maria Popova)], maybe giving all of the credit to one individual – Linnaeus – isn’t the whole story.

Accordingly, I did some research on this topic, trying to get to the bottom of who ‘invented’ binomial nomenclature. And, as you might have suspected, it’s a little more nuanced than the version that appears widespread in the widely-available sources…

Linnaeus not the first to use binomials…

Succinctly, but unequivocally, stated by the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology in that establishment’s online essay about Carl Linnaeus: “…Linnaeus was not the first to use binomials…” (which statement is unsourced) [Ed. – but “he was the first to use them consistently” (which statement is also unsourced)]. Which is certainly bold, but no sources were cited to support that assertion.

Linnaeus’ predecessors – unnamed or not – had used binomials…

The Editorial (which statement is unsourced) in The American Biology Teacher by Randy Moore (1997) is quite definite in stating that Linnaeus was not the first person to use binomials – “contrary to what’s written in many introductory biology books” – but, “he was the first biologist to use them consistently”.

Judith Winston (2018): “Blessed with an abundance of experience and material, Linnaeus did something revolutionary. Although some of his predecessors had given species two-word names, the second part qualifying the first, they were not consistent in using such binomial names throughout their works. Linnaeus standardized the system almost accidentally by beginning to print a nomen trivale, a unique two-word combination for every species, in the margins of his text, although his short descriptions still resembled the expanded polynomial names used previously. He used this system consistently for plants in the 1753 edition of his Species Plantarum, and for animals in 1758 in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae. These two dates are still taken as the beginnings of scientific naming” (p. 1123). Again, here it’s Linnaeus’ consistent use of binomials – which presumably had only been used inconsistently, although invented, by his predecessors – that is Linnaeus’ important contribution.

In an article that presents a pretty thorough review of the development of binomial nomenclature, Helen Choate (1912) is of the view that “Our system [binomial nomenclature], therefore, represents not the creation of one man but a gradual evolution … of which steps Linnaeus took the most important” (p. 263), and “our modern binomial nomenclature in fact owes its most characteristic feature directly to the introduction by Linnaeus of the trivial names” (p. 263) [Ed. – John Heller (1964) considers the invention of trivial names by Linnaeus to be the impetus that led to the formalisation of binomial nomenclature. As does Sandra Knapp [see For good measure above.]

Some predecessors named…

According to Suchandra Dutta et al. (2007): “The binomial nomenclature did not originate with Linnaeus. Theophrastus, the father of botany, used binomials even in 4th century BC”.

And, Lucille Maughan (1932) is clearly of the view that: “It is very true that Linnaeus did not invent binomial nomenclature. There is definite record of its use, 200 years before his time by Belon [Ed. – Pierre Belon?], though not in the sense we now employ it, but it had never come into general use, and most biologists seemed to have been ignorant of it”. The last part of that quote is rather telling. Unless a discovery is promoted – by others or the discoverer – then it may ‘fall by the wayside’, to be rediscovered later on by another – who may be credited with its original invention. In science it’s not just a case of ‘publish or perish’ (Sara Custer), you need to publish and promote your ideas as well if they are to survive and to have the chance of them being rightfully credited to their originator.

… But Bauhin is the front-runner

The contributors to ‘Brainkart’ – although without stating their sources – firmly lay the introduction of binomialism at the feet of Gaspard Bauhin (Jürg Stöcklin & Jurriaan De Vos, 2023): “Carolus Linnaeus suggested a system of binomial nomenclature. Although the binomial system was introduced by Gaspard Bauhin as early as 1623, it had properly been made use by Linnaeus in his book Species Plantarum”.

The case for Bauhin(s) is enhanced…

The precedence of one – or maybe two – Bauhin siblings is endorsed by the on-line Biology Dictionary with: “An early form of the naming system was developed by the brothers Gaspard and Johann Bauhin, Swedish [sic., they were actually Swiss (Jürg Stöcklin & Jurriaan De Vos, 2023)…] botanists who lived from the mid-1500’s to the early 1600’s”. The site cites Gaspard’s Pinax theatric botanici (“Illustrated Exposition of Plants”), “The major contribution of this work, however, was his idea to describe plants using a genus and/or species”.

There is further support for the Bauhins from Wikipedia’s page for Binomial nomenclature: “The Bauhins, in particular Caspar Bauhin (1560–1624), took some important steps towards the binomial system by pruning the Latin descriptions, in many cases to two words”. However, that page does acknowledge that “The formal introduction of this system of naming species is credited to Carl Linnaeus, effectively beginning with his work Species Plantarum in 1753”.

More praise for Bauhin comes from EJ Walton: “Bauhin’s system was published over 150 years earlier than Linnaeus’ but bears a very similar resemblance to it. While the origin of taxonomy does not change how we use it today, it is important that we give credit to whom it is due. It is difficult to determine how much of Linnaeus’ system can be credited to the work of Bauhin but there is little doubt that Linnaeus did describe and classify a simply mind-boggling number of species. Still to this day, his work is an invaluable addition to science. Just like all aspects of science, the work of one scientist (unless you’re Aristotle) is built upon the work of a multitude of others”.

James Smith (2017) clearly states that sole credit should not be given to Linnaeus: “A new way of naming plants, using only two words, was developed by Caspar Bauhin (1560-1624). August Rivinus (1652-1723) also proposed that plants ought to have names of no more than two words. You probably thought it invented by Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), because so many textbooks incorrectly give him the credit”. However, Smith (2017) does give credit to Linnaeus who “assured its [binomial nomenclature] permanent use in scientific writing was that Linnaeus adopted it in his monumental work, “Species Plantarum””.

Finally, Lois Tilton tells us, in unsourced statements, that: “His [Aristotle’s] other innovation was binomial definition. “Binomial” means “two names,” and according to this system each kind of organism can be defined by the two names of its “genus and difference.” And, “Gaspard Bauhin (1560-1620), a Swiss physician and anatomist. In his 1623 Illustrated Exposition of Plants (Pinax Theatri Botanica), he described about six thousand species and gave them names based on their “natural affinities,” grouping them into genus and species. He was thus the first scientist to use binomial nomenclature in classification of species, anticipating the work of Linnaeus”. Support here for both Gaspard Bauhin and Aristotle in developing the notion of binomials.

Linnaeus … adopted and popularised binomial nomenclature…

If Linnaeus didn’t ‘invent’ binomial nomenclature, he was the person who developed it to be the taxonomic mainstay that it is today. This view is espoused by AG Morton in his 1981 book History of Botanical Science [freely accessible here]: “The great innovation, for which Linnaeus will always be remembered and acclaimed, was his adoption and popularization of the binomial (or binary) system of designation of species” (p. 274).

… and systematized, formalized and promoted them…

The view firmly held by Stephen Heard & Julia Mlynarek (2023): “Linnaeus did not, however, invent the binomial name or intend its exclusive use. Binomials had been in occasional prior use, including in 1691 by Jung [8] [Joachim Jung, author of Historia Vermium?]; and Linnaeus believed they should supplement, not replace the descriptive phrase-name [9,10]. Instead, what was truly novel about Linnaeus’s nomenclatural system—what changed naming fundamentally and forever—was the decoupling of naming from description. While Linnaeus did not invent the non-descriptive, binomial genus-and-species name out of thin air, he did systematize, formalize and promote it. In doing so, he made a fundamental change in the prevailing system of nomenclature that made naming the creative act it is today”.

… and was the first to use binomials consistently.

“Although Linnaeus was not the first to use binomials, he was the first to use them consistently” is the stated – but unsourced – view of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology in that establishment’s online essay about Carl Linnaeus.

From Wikipedia’s Carl Linnaeus page: “Although the system, now known as binomial nomenclature, was partially developed by the Bauhin brothers (see Gaspard Bauhin and Johann Bauhin) almost 200 years earlier, Linnaeus was the first to use it consistently throughout the work, including in monospecific genera, and may be said to have popularised it within the scientific community”.

And, Lois Tilton‘s unsourced statement: “If Linnaeus is now considered the father of taxonomy, his success rested on the work of his predecessors. He was the first, in his System of Nature, to combine a hierarchical system of classification from kingdom to species with the method of binomial nomenclature, using it consistently to identify every species of both plants and animals then known to him”.

Are we talking semantics?

Is part of the problem that inspired this post a purely semantic one****, which revolves around inappropriate distinction between the invention of binomial names and naming, on the one hand, and the introduction of a system of binomial nomenclature – applied consistently across all lifeforms – on the other? If it is (and, being charitable and giving them – where appropriate – the benefit of the doubt, to all commentators whose words and works I have quoted or cited here, I suspect that this is the case), then it looks like Linnaeus deserves the credit for the latter, but that the initial introduction of binomials is not an innovation that is unique to Linnaeus, but is down to one or several of his predecessors who could legitimately be credited with introduction of binomial naming.

This is the distinction previously made by William Stearn (1959): “Linnaeus did not invent binomial nomenclature” (p. 6). But, “By the introduction of his binomial system of nomenclature Linnaeus gave plants and animals an essentially Latin nomenclature like vernacular nomenclature in style but linked to published, and hence relatively stable and verifiable, scientific concepts and thus suitable for international use. This was his most important contribution to biology” (p. 10).

A solution…

Considering that it is nomenclature – “a system of words used to name things in a particular discipline” – that we’re considering in this post it seems a non-trivial matter to ensure that the correct wording is used to acknowledge Linnaeus’ contribution to the question. In summarising my various researches presented above, what we can probably agree upon is that Linnaeus rightly deserves the credit for formalising/popularising/developing the binomial system, but, not for inventing or creating binomial nomenclature. Credit where credit’s due, some credit should certainly go to Caspar/Gaspard Bauhin, and probably others, for developing the notion and practice of binomial nomenclature. And, in case it’s not clear, to answer the question posed in this post’s title, No, Linnaeus did not invent binomial nomenclature*****.

What next..?

Having answered this post’s question, is that the end of the matter? Yes and no. We know it wasn’t Linnaeus. But, if it wasn’t Linnaeus, the obvious follow-up question is: who first came up with the notion of binomials? Although some names were mentioned above, this post does not provide anything like a definitive answer to that question. But, in the spirit of ‘knowing one’s limits’, Mr Cuttings is not the person to tackle that altogether bigger question. However, if somebody can answer it – or point me in the direction of some source that does – I’d be pleased to hear from them. Until then, happy pondering.

* Are binomials really unique? For the answer to this question, see the next post.

** To give an idea of what pre-Linnean biologists had to contend with, here are a few examples of polynomials. The honeybee, which we today know as Apis mellifera, “had previously been called Apis pubescens, thorace subgriseo, abdomine fusco, pedibus posticus glabis, untrinque margine ciliatus” (Marta Paterlini, 2007). “A wild geranium was called Geranium pedunculis bifloris caule dichotomo erecto foliis quinquepartitis incisis summis sessilibus. A particular tomato species was Solanum caule inerme herbaceo, foliis pinnatis incisis, racemis simplicibus” (LeeAnn Kriegh). Quite a lot to remember for each species(!)

*** We must here spare a thought for those poor individuals who had to contend with polynomials. Not only were polynomials “not standardized, different polynomials existed for the same plant”, they were “cumbersome to remember”. But remember them you’d need to if you wanted to call yourself a Botanist. As AG Morton tells us: “Linnaeus thus defines a botanist (Philosophi, 151): All plants are learnt in a year, at first sight, without a teacher, without pictures or descriptions, and are firmly in the memory. He who has learnt how to do this is a botanist, no one else is” (p. 282, History of Botanical Science, 1981) [Ed. – text freely accessible here]. And just imagine how tricky it would have been at the changeover period from polynomials to binomials when – presumably – biologists had to juggle both systems.

**** My suggestion here is inspired by this quote from Wikipedia’s page for Binomial nomenclature: “The Bauhins, in particular Caspar Bauhin (1560–1624), took some important steps towards the binomial system by pruning the Latin descriptions, in many cases to two words.^[12] The adoption by biologists of a system of strictly binomial nomenclature is due to Swedish botanist and physician Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778). It was in Linnaeus’s 1753 Species Plantarum that he began consistently using a one-word trivial name (nomen triviale) after a generic name (genus name) in a system of binomial nomenclature”.

***** There is also a need to cite sources

Answering the post’s question involved many hours of research. Even when articles were found that helped to develop the answer, they were a bit of a mix of those which stated sources and those which did not (but which could be cited because they presented a published point of view that, in the absence of provided sources, was by default attributable to the post’s author). If the casual, but nevertheless sceptical, reader did their own research and found only sources that confirmed the view that Linnaeus invented binomial nomenclature, they would understandably believe that was the case – because that point of view was supportable by the sources they’d found; i.e. that view was therefore evidenced-based. Had that same reader only found contrary statements, they’d have a completely different view – but which was also entirely justified, and equally evidenced-based – of whether Linnaeus should get the credit. But, if – like me – they’d been even more diligent in their searching of the literature, etc. and found a host of sources that presented more of a nuanced view of the answer to the question – which researches are as presented in this post – they’d end up with Mr P Cuttings’ view.

What I’m saying is that [unless one just accepts as fact any statement one chooses without requiring any evidence to support it] one’s views of the veracity****** of anything are intimately bound up with the sources one has found. The point at which we choose to stop looking for sources is up to the individual, and no doubt colours the view that is held on the matter in question. Sadly, one can – almost always? – find source(s) that reinforce one’s own prejudices or half-remembered ‘facts’. At what point should we stop looking for evidence? Wouldn’t it be so much more straightforward – and easier – if all statements of fact were properly evidence-based when stated? That way we would always know the provenance of a fact. [Ed. – had Barnes provided a source for his statement that Linnaeus invented binomials, this post could have been much shorter – and saved Mr P Cuttings a lot of extra work.] [2-Ed. – and the readers a lot of unnecessary reading…]

****** By way of an X files postscript, as FBI Special Agent Dana Scully might have said, “The truth is out there”. You just have to do some looking to find it. Even then, it may be contradictory, or more nuanced than you might expect – or like…

REFERENCES

Helen Choate, 1912. The origin and development of the binomial system. The Plant World 15(11): 257-263; https://www.jstor.org/stable/43476918

Suchandra R. Dutta et al., 2007. Carl von Linné – the Father of Taxonomy. Pleione 1: 1–4.

Stephen Heard & Julia Mlynarek, 2023. Naming the menagerie: creativity, culture and consequences in the formation of scientific names. Proc. R. Soc. B 290: 20231970; https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1970

John Heller, 1964. The early history of biological nomenclature. Huntia 1: 33-70 [https://www.huntbotanical.org/admin/uploads/06hibd-huntia-1-pp33-70.pdf]

Marcel Humar, 2024. Scientific Nomenclature of Species and Naming Practices in (Ancient) Biology, pp. 183-204. In Coming to Terms: Approaches to (Ancient) Terminologies, edited by Markus Asper, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter; https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111314532-008

Lucille Maughan, 1932. Linnaeus the First Great Taxonomist. Bios 3(1): 25-36; https://www.jstor.org/stable/4603894

Randy Moore, 1997. Linnaeus & the Sex Lives of Plants. The American Biology Teacher 59 (3): 132-132; https://doi.org/10.2307/4450266

Marta Paterlini, 2007. There shall be order. The legacy of Linnaeus in the age of molecular biology. EMBO Rep. 8(9): 814-916; doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401061

James Smith, 2017. The Scientific Names of Plants. Botanical Studies 28. 1-13; https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/28

David R Smyth, 2005. Morphogenesis of Flowers—Our Evolving View. The Plant Cell 17(2): 330–341; https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.104.030353

WT Stearn, 1959. The Background of Linnaeus’s Contributions to the Nomenclature and Methods of Systematic Biology. Systematic Biology 8(1): 4–22; https://doi.org/10.2307/sysbio/8.1.4

Jürg Stöcklin & Jurriaan M De Vos, 2023. Caspar Bauhin’s life (1560–1624) – Academic career, achievements as a botanist and his herbarium. Bauhinia 29: 7-16; doi: https://doi.org/10.12685/bauhinia.1346

Judith E Winston, 2018. Twenty-First Century Biological Nomenclature—The Enduring Power of Names. Integrative and Comparative Biology 58(6): 1122–1131; https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy060