It seems your quotes are supporting my position not yours?

What has lasted is Linnaeus importance for nomenclature, as the official
starting point of the binary system of names of species.

This binary nomenclature is of vital importance to taxonomy, as well as just
about any other science, with the exception of astronomy (and perhaps some
of the social sciences, although I think not).

I don't see how binary nomenclature can be called a system, except in the
most abstract sense. Likely it is here to stay, although the PhyloCode-
adherents suggest otherwise.

Taxonomy itself was not much influenced by Linnaeus. Thankfully Linnaeus'
Sexual System is forgotten.

The present system of botanical nomenclature uses many ranks, of which only
one rank, species, was affected by Linnaeus.

So there is some reason to recognize Linnaeus as the founding father of
modern nomenclature (although his actual contribution is limited to one
rank), but no real reason whatsoever to connect Linnaeus with taxonomy, let
alone call him the 'father of modern taxonomy'. Of course the popular mind
does not distinguish taxonomy from nomenclature.

What Linnaeus did manage to achieve was good PR, as well as compiling his
complete survey of all known plants, complete with a binary name for each.
PvR

=============
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

c.mcculloch schreef
Well, OK - I'll have a shot at it, but I'm a bit pushed for time.
Prior to Linnaeus, there was little if any universally accepted system for
the naming of organisms. Although some people used binomials, long
polynomials were still common.
If pressed, I would nominate his sexual system, even though this was very
artificial and not entirely successful.
This taxonomy was pretty soon abandoned by later botanists, but his system
of naming taxa persisted, as it was effective way to communicate about
plants - most educated people then spoke latin, and the binomens (even if,
as you say, many of them were "idiotic") did at least have a precise meaning
(you might disagree with that).
Also, it was simple. Any botanist or naturalist could use the system to
classify and identify plants that he/she had never encountered before, and
this was what most people wanted, and still want. So it was used, and
remained in use. To quote from the Linnaean Society (the London one):
"In his publications, Linnaeus provided a concise, usable survey of all the
world's plants and animals as then known, about 7,700 species of plants and
4,400 species of animals. These works helped to establish and standardize
the consistent binomial nomenclature for species which he introduced on a
world scale for plants in 1753, and for animals in 1758, and which is used
today. His Species Plantarum 10th edition, volume 1(1758), have accordingly
been accepted by international agreement as the official starting points for
botanical and zoological nomenclature. Scientific names published before
then have no validity unless adopted by Linnaeus or by later authors. This
confers a high scientific importance on the specimens used by Linnaeus for
their preparation, many of which are in his personal collections now
treasured by the Linnean Society". and:
"The general adoption by botanists and zoologists of this consistent
two-word nomenclature for species during the second-half of the 18th century
came about because Linnaeus introduced it in comprehensive works which
naturalists soon found indispensable"

Yes, I know that quotes are a bit of a cop-out, but I really do have to
leave this - at least pro tem, and I doubt that I could improve on what they
have to say.

Colin