按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ide might there celebrate their nuptials with so much thegreater solemnity。 when the bed has thus been made ready； then is the time for thebridegroom to embrace his beloved bride and surrender himself to her。
he named one genus of plants clitoria。 not surprisingly； many people thought him strange。
but his system of classification was irresistible。 before linnaeus； plants were given namesthat were expansively descriptive。 the mon ground cherry was called physalis amnoramosissime ramis angulosis glabris foliis dentoserratis。 linnaeus lopped it back to physalisangulata； which name it still uses。 the plant world was equally disordered by inconsistenciesof naming。 a botanist could not be sure ifrosa sylvestris alba cum rubore； folio glabro wasthe same plant that others called rosa sylvestris inodora seu canina。 linnaeus solved thepuzzlement by calling it simply rosa canina。 to make these excisions useful and agreeable toall required much more than simply being decisive。 it required an instinct—a genius； in fact—for spotting the salient qualities of a species。
the linnaean system is so well established that we can hardly imagine an alternative； butbefore linnaeus； systems of classification were often highly whimsical。 animals might becategorized by whether they were wild or domesticated； terrestrial or aquatic； large or small；even whether they were thought handsome and noble or of no consequence。 buffon arrangedhis animals by their utility to man。 anatomical considerations barely came into it。 linnaeus made it his life’s work to rectify this deficiency by classifying all that was alive according toits physical attributes。 taxonomy—which is to say the science of classification—has neverlooked back。
it all took time； of course。 the first edition of his great systema naturae in 1735 was justfourteen pages long。 but it grew and grew until by the twelfth edition—the last that linnaeuswould live to see—it extended to three volumes and 2；300 pages。 in the end he named orrecorded some 13；000 species of plant and animal。 other works were more prehensive—john ray’s three…volume historia generalis plantarum in england； pleted a generationearlier； covered no fewer than 18；625 species of plants alone—but what linnaeus had that noone else could touch were consistency； order； simplicity； and timeliness。 though his workdates from the 1730s； it didn’t bee widely known in england until the 1760s； just in timeto make linnaeus a kind of father figure to british naturalists。 nowhere was his systemembraced with greater enthusiasm （which is why； for one thing； the linnaean society has itshome in london and not stockholm）。
linnaeus was not flawless。 he made room for mythical beasts and “monstrous humans”
whose descriptions he gullibly accepted from seamen and other imaginative travelers。 amongthese were a wild man； homo ferus； who walked on all fours and had not yet mastered the artof speech； and homo caudatus； “man with a tail。” but then it was； as we should not forget； analtogether more credulous age。 even the great joseph banks took a keen and believing interestin a series of reported sightings of mermaids off the scottish coast at the end of the eighteenthcentury。 for the most part； however； linnaeus’s lapses were offset by sound and oftenbrilliant taxonomy。 among other acplishments； he saw that whales belonged with cows；mice； and other mon terrestrial animals in the order quadrupedia （later changed tomammalia）； which no one had done before。
in the beginning； linnaeus intended only to give each plant a genus name and a number—convolvulus 1； convolvulus 2；and so on—but soon realized that that was unsatisfactory andhit on the binomial arrangement that remains at the heart of the system to this day。 theintention originally was to use the binomial system for everything—rocks； minerals； diseases；winds； whatever existed in nature。 not everyone embraced the system warmly。 many weredisturbed by its tendency toward indelicacy； which was slightly ironic as before linnaeus themon names of many plants and animals had been heartily vulgar。 the dandelion was longpopularly known as the “pissabed” because of its supposed diuretic properties； and othernames in everyday use included mare’s fart； naked ladies； twitch…ballock； hound’s piss； openarse； and bum…towel。 one or two of these earthy appellations may unwittingly survive inenglish yet。 the “maidenhair” in maidenhair moss； for instance； does not refer to the hair onthe maiden’s head。 at all events； it had long been felt that the natural sciences would beappreciably dignified by a dose of classical renaming； so there was a certain dismay indiscovering that the self…appointed prince of botany had sprinkled his texts with suchdesignations asclitoria； fornicata； andvulva。
over the years many of these were quietly dropped （though not all： the mon slipperlimpet still answers on formal occasions to crepidula fornicata） and many other refinementsintroduced as the needs of the natural sciences grew more specialized。 in particular the systemwas bolstered by the gradual introduction of additional hierarchies。genus （pluralgenera） andspecies had been employed by naturalists for over a hundred years before linnaeus； andorder； class； and family in their biological senses all came into use in the 1750s and 1760s。
but phylum wasn’t coined until 1876 （by the german ernst haeckel）； and family and order were treated as interchangeable until early in the twentieth century。 for a time zoologists usedfamily where botanists placed order； to the occasional confusion of nearly everyone。
1linnaeus had divided the animal world into six categories： mammals； reptiles； birds； fishes；insects； and “vermes；” or worms； for everything that didn’t fit into the first five。 from theoutset it was evident that putting lobsters and shrimp into the same category as worms wasunsatisfactory； and various new categories such as mollusca and crustacea were created。
unfortunately these new classifications were not uniformly applied from nation to nation。 inan attempt to reestablish order； the british in 1842 proclaimed a new set of rules called thestricklandian code； but the french saw this as highhand