This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Under Early education, the following is somewhat ambiguous (had to read twice): "His father began teaching Linnaeus Latin..."
Request change to: "Carl's father began teaching him Latin..." (or similar) -- Note: Carl and his father are both "Linnaeus", and was wondering what "Linnaeus Latin" is. ~E 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear M0rphzone, Linnaeus did not just describe the morphology of the reproductive organs of plants. He provoked a scandal as het described the sexual system, of plants or parts thereof being either male or female, and the mating of the two. It is well documented in Carl Linnaeus Species Plantarum, A Facsimile of the first edition 1753, Volume I, with an introduction by W.T. Stearn, Ch. IV, p. 24- (Ray Society; 1957). On p. 25 Stearn writes: "The dramatic metaphorical form in which Linnaeus published his system based on the 'loves of the plants' was better suited to the temper and manners of the 18th than the 19th century, though even in that robust period it did not escape criticism." and so on. Your "claim" that the word "sexuality" only describes humans is thereby put to the test and falsified. But I would be glad of course if you could come up with a better wording, in stead of just undoing my last edit. Better wording means that you don't use the word "morphology" as that is only half or even less of the essence of what Linnaeus published, and the parallel with human sexuality should still be clear as this is the parallel Linnaeus himself made. I'm very much looking forward to your suggestion. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Disregarding the topic of Linneaus and that article, show me an instance where "plant sexuality" is used more often than "plant reproduction" or "plant sexual morphology". I guarantee you plant sexuality is an obscure, inaccurate, and unspecific name for use in academic settings. And if you used Google hits, the difference is even greater. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not a matter of what words are used most frequently (or, even worse, about using Google hits on the subject): it is about how Linnaeus described the topic of sexual reproduction in plants. Linnaeus compared the pistils with "brides", the stamens with "grooms", and the combination of the two in flowers as "marriages". He was heavily criticised by, amongst others, Johann Siegesbeck, when he described marriages of several grooms with one bride (or other unlawful combinations). Linnaeus used words of human sexuality when he described sexual reproduction in plants. Part of the debate on his system was about just that. I think that should be clear in the article and I don't think it will if one uses only current, 21st century, academic words like "sexual morphology" when something with a different feel is meant. Wikiklaas (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikiklaas: I agree entirely that if the edits had changed the use of "sexuality" in a description of Linnaeus' "sexual system" for classifying plants, then it would be wrong for the reason you give. However, looking at the page history, this doesn't seem to be the case. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the intro could be slightly condensed by possibly moving the 3rd paragraph commentary on Linnaeus to the section "Commentary on Linnaeus." The last paragraph could probably be moved somewhere else as well, such as the "Views on Mankind" section? These two parts just seem a little unnecessary for anyone just trying to get a brief overview of who Linnaeus was from the intro. Ashleyweir (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)