=========
They even put "the 'father of taxonomy' title" between single quotes to
show it should not be taken literally!
=========
Quite; to show that he was not literally its daddy.
Colin

+ + +
There is a saying "succes has many fathers"
+ + +

======
...modern taxonomy is assumed to start with Caesalpinus (1519-1603) or
John Ray

I could be tempted to go with the last two, but I'll stick with the
majority ;-) and my old friend Linnaeus.

=======
I doubt that you could easily find anybody who knows what the system
of Linnaeus is, it has fallen in disuse so long ago that only students of
history are even vaguely familiar with it.
The importance of Linneaus lies in the fact that he published surveys of
plants which were complete (ie all known plants) and to file these in an
accessible manner he used the Sexual System

= = =
I do agree with your last paragraph :-0, but he also made the study of
plants more accessible by publishing short descriptions of plant species,

+ + +
included in "survey", isn't it?
+ + +

and standardised many of the alternative names.

+ + +
The real standardization came only later and some of Linnaeus' choices have
been cursed as idiotic by generations of botanists.
+ + +

However, when I innocently offered up the report on Hebert's paper, I
didn't expect to stir up so much reaction. It *has* been fun, but perhaps
enough is enough?
Colin

+ + +
Actually you might elaborate on what you did mean by:
Give Linnaeus his due - despite the flaws, his system has served
us pretty well and should not be rudely dismissed.

It is still unclear what system you meant and how it has proved useful?
PvR