Bad math in Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica

  • János Podani
  • András Szilágyi
Original Paper


In Philosophia Botanica (1751), Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) presented a calculation of the number of plant genera that may be distinguished based on his taxonomic concepts. In order to derive that number, he relied upon the organs of fructification, which represent the flower and the fruit, by selecting over 30 elements from them, and then assuming that each could vary by four dimensions. However, while Linnaeus was good in counting stamens and pistils, he and many of his followers who edited or translated Philosophia Botanica were less careful, basing their calculations of the number of possible genera on flawed assumptions, or even introducing basic arithmetic errors. Furthermore, although mathematics was quite advanced in the eighteenth century, the gap between combinatorial and botanical thinking was too deep, preventing Linnaeus to seek a reasonable solution to the problem he raised. The authors demonstrate this by a historical analysis of 15 editions of Philosophia Botanica, plus many references to it, and conclude that the desired number almost always appeared in error during the past 265 years. The German botanist J. G. Gleditsch (1714–1786) was the most successful with respect to Linnaeus’ original intention. Elementary mathematics demonstrates that if Linnaeus’ assumptions were taken seriously, then the possible number of genera would be astronomical. The practice he followed in Genera Plantarum (1754) shows, however, that the fructification dimensions served as a universal set for Linnaeus from which he chose only the relevant ones for describing a particular genus empirically. Based on the corrections and modifications implemented in reworked editions, we suggest an evolutionary network for the historical and modern versions or translations of Philosophia Botanica.


Elementary combinatorics Fructification Genus concept Gleditsch Text evolution Willdenow 



The authors are grateful to the editor, S. Müller-Wille for his detailed comments which greatly improved the manuscript, and the anonymous referee for the constructive criticism. We thank Veronika Kulin for her help with latin translations, Partícia Dérer for assistance with the Russian language and Enrico Feoli for translating some text in Italian.


  1. Andrietti, F., & Generali, D. (2002). Storia e storiografia della scienza: il caso della sistematica. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  2. Atran, S. (1987). Origin of the species and genus concepts: An anthropological perspective. Journal of the History of Biology, 20(2), 195–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atran, S. (1990). Cognitive foundations of natural history. Towards an anthropology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bueno, G. (1998). Los limites de la evolución en el ámbito de la Scala Naturae. In E. Molina, A. Carreras, & J. Puertas (Eds.), Evolucionismo y racionalismo (pp. 49–88). Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico.Google Scholar
  5. Cain, A. J. (1993). Linnaeus’s ordines naturales. Archives of Natural History, 20, 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain, A. J. (1994). Numerus, Figura, Proportio, Situs; Linnaeus’s definitory attributes. Archives of Natural History, 21, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Čermáková, L. (2013). Úloha smyslového vnímání při poznávání a popisu přírody v renesanci. (The Role of Sensory Perception in Cognition and Description of Nature in the Renaissance.) MSc thesis, Charles University, Prague.Google Scholar
  8. de Lara Filho, D. (2006). Museu: de espelho do mundo a espaco relaçional. MSc thesis, Univ. Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
  9. Eddy, M. D. (2010). Tools for reordering: commonplacing and the space of words in Linnaeus’s Philosophia Botanica. Intellectual History Review, 20, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ereshefsky, M. (1997). The evolution of the Linnaean hierarchy. Biology and Philosophy, 12, 493–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ereshefsky, M. (2004). The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: A philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (2002). The order of things: An archaeology of human sciences. London: Routledge. Originally: Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard. 1966.Google Scholar
  13. Freer, S. (2003). Preface to Philosophia Botanica (pp. ix–xiii). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  14. Géczy, B. (1982). Lamarck és Darwin. Budapest: Gondolat.Google Scholar
  15. Hacker, J. B. (1992). To name a plant – a historical perspective. Queensland Naturalist, 32, 2–13.Google Scholar
  16. Hulth, J. M. (1907). Bibliographia Linnaeana. Matériaux pour servir a une bibliographie linnéenne. Partie I, Livraison I. Uppsala: Kungl. Vetenskaps Societeten.Google Scholar
  17. Kwa, C. (2011). Styles of knowing. A new history of science from ancient times to the present. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Originally: De ontdekking van het weten: Ein andere geschiedenis van de wetenschap. Amsterdam, 2005.Google Scholar
  18. Larson, J. L. (1971). Reason and experience. The representation of natural order in the work of Carl von Linné. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, J. (1788). An introduction to the science of botany chiefly extracted from the works of Linnaeus, to which are added several new tables and notes and a life of the author. London: Printed for F.C. and J. Rivington, Wilkie and Robinson, J. Walker, White and Co.Google Scholar
  20. Müller-Wille, S. and Scharf, S. (2009). Indexing nature: Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) and his fact-gathering strategies. Working Papers on The Nature of Evidence: How Well Do ‘Facts’ Travel? No. 36/08.Google Scholar
  21. Müller-Wille, S. (2007). Collection and collation: Theory and practice of Linnaean botany. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38, 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Müller-Wille, S., & Reeds, K. (2007). A translation of Carl Linnaeus’s introduction to Genera plantarum (1737). Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oittinen, V. (2007). Kant ja Linné. Ajatus, 64, 31–50.Google Scholar
  24. Oittinen, V. (2009). Linné zwischen Wolff und Kant. Zu einigen Kantischen Motiven in Linnés biologischer Klassifikation. In E.-O. Onnasch (Ed.), Kants Philosophie der Natur, ihre Entwicklung im Opus postumum und ihre Wirkung (pp. 51–77). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pulteney, R. (1805). A general view of the writings of Linnaeus (2nd ed.). London: Mawman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roger, J. (1981). Linné et l’ordre de la nature. Arion, 6(5–6), 3–7.Google Scholar
  27. Scopoli, G. A. (1786). Fundamenta Botanica. Vienna.Google Scholar
  28. Soulsby, B. H. (1933). A catalogue of the works of Linnaeus (and publications more immediately relating thereto) preserved in the libraries of the British Museum (Bloomsbury) and the British Museum (Natural History) (South Kensington). London: British Museum.Google Scholar
  29. Stafleu, F. A. (1971). Linnaeus and the Linneans: The spreading of their ideas in systematic botany, 1735–1789. Utrecht: Oosthoek.Google Scholar
  30. Stafleu, F. A. and Cowan, R. S. (1981). Taxonomic literature. A selective guide to botanical publications with dates, commentaries and types. Vol III: Lh–O. Regnum Vegetabile 105.Google Scholar
  31. Stearn, W. T. (1985). Botanical latin. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.Google Scholar
  32. Stemerding, D. (1991). Plants, animals and formulae: Natural history in the light of Latour’s science in action and Foucault’s the order of things. PhD thesis, University of Twente.Google Scholar
  33. Svenson, H. K. (1945). On the descriptive method of Linnaeus. Rhodora, 47, 273–302.Google Scholar
  34. Vasilyeva, L. N., & Stephenson, S. L. (2008). The Linnaean hierarchy and ‘extensional thinking’. The Open Evolution Journal, 2, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Institute of BiologyEötvös University and MTA-ELTE-MTM Ecology Research GroupBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Institute of BiologyEötvös University and MTA-ELTE Theoretical Biology and Evolutionary Ecology Research GroupBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations