Editing Carl Linnaeus (section)

=== Human taxonomy ===
{{main|Human taxonomy#History}}
Linnaeus's system of taxonomy was especially noted as the first to include humans (''[[Homo]]'') taxonomically grouped with apes (''[[Simia]]''), under the header of ''[[Anthropomorpha]]''.
German biologist [[Ernst Haeckel]] speaking in 1907 noted this as the "most important sign of Linnaeus's genius".<ref>Sven Horstadius,  Linnaeus, animals and man, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 6 (December 1974), 269–275 (p. 273).</ref>

{{anchor|Biological Family}}
Linnaeus classified humans among the [[primate]]s beginning with the first edition of ''{{lang|la|Systema Naturae}}''.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qNtjfh57ipsC&q=primate+carl+linnaeus+highest |title=The Book of Popular Science |date=1963 |language=en}}</ref> During his time at Hartekamp, he had the opportunity to examine several [[monkey]]s and noted similarities between them and man.<ref>[[#Gribbin|Gribbin & Gribbin (2008)]], pp. 173–174.</ref> He pointed out both species basically have the same anatomy; except for speech, he found no other differences.<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], p. 170.</ref><ref group=note>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], p. 167, quotes Linnaeus explaining the real difference would necessarily be absent from his classification system, as it was not a [[morphology (biology)|morphological]] characteristic: ''"I well know what a splendidly great difference there is [between] a man and a ''bestia'' [literally, "beast"; that is, a non-human animal] when I look at them from a point of view of [[morality]]. Man is the animal which the [[Creator deity#Christianity|Creator]] has seen fit to honor with such a magnificent [[mind]] and has condescended to adopt as his favorite and for which he has prepared a nobler life"''. See also [https://books.google.com/books?id=wIkOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA179 books.google.com] in which Linnaeus cites the significant capacity to reason as the distinguishing characteristic of humans.</ref> Thus he placed man and monkeys under the same category, ''Anthropomorpha'', meaning "manlike".<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], p. 167.</ref> This classification received criticism from other biologists such as [[Johan Gottschalk Wallerius]], [[Jacob Theodor Klein]] and [[Johann Georg Gmelin]] on the ground that it is illogical to describe man as human-like.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_txt.php?id_letter=L0759 |author=Johann Georg Gmelin |title=Letter to Carl Linnaeus |date=30 December 1746 |location=St. Petersburg, Russia |work=The Linnean Correspondence |access-date=4 October 2011 |id=L0759 |author-link=Johann Georg Gmelin |archive-date=27 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927135303/http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_txt.php?id_letter=L0759 |url-status=live }}</ref> In a letter to Gmelin from 1747, Linnaeus replied:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_txt.php?id_letter=L0783 |author=Carl Linnaeus |title=Letter to Johann Georg Gmelin |date=25 February 1747 |location=Uppsala, Sweden |work=The Linnean Correspondence |access-date=4 October 2011 |id=L0783 |archive-date=27 February 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090227174240/http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_txt.php?id_letter=L0783 |url-status=live }} Also available as [http://linnaeus.c18.net/mss_combine/UUB/L-GmelinJG/L0783-a-150-02.jpg JPG] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110704203749/http://linnaeus.c18.net/mss_combine/UUB/L-GmelinJG/L0783-a-150-02.jpg |date=4 July 2011 }}.</ref>{{refn|1=Discussion of translation was originally made in [https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/39a07ac72ab23aed/ this thread] on [[talk.origins]] in 2005. For an alternative translation, see [[#Gribbin|Gribbin & Gribbin (2008)]], p. 56, or [[#Slotkin|Slotkin (1965)]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=wIkOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA180 p. 180].|group=note}}

<!--Please don't edit the translation without leaving a comment on the talk page. -->{{blockquote|It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form',<ref group=note>"antropomorphon" {{sic}}</ref> but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History.<ref group=note>Others who followed were more inclined to give humans a special place in classification; [[Johann Friedrich Blumenbach]] in the first edition of his ''Manual of Natural History'' (1779), proposed that the primates be divided into the [[Quadrumana]] (four-handed, i.e. apes and monkeys) and [[Bimana]] (two-handed, i.e. humans). This distinction was taken up by other naturalists, most notably [[Georges Cuvier]]. Some elevated the distinction to the level of [[order (biology)|order]]. However, the many affinities between humans and other primates—and especially the great apes—made it clear that the distinction made no scientific sense. [[Charles Darwin]] wrote, in ''[[The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex|The Descent of Man]]'' in 1871:

{{blockquote|The greater number of naturalists who have taken into consideration the whole structure of man, including his mental faculties, have followed [[Johann Friedrich Blumenbach|Blumenbach]] and [[Georges Cuvier|Cuvier]], and have placed man in a separate Order, under the title of the Bimana, and therefore on an equality with the orders of the Quadrumana, Carnivora, etc. Recently many of our best naturalists have recurred to the view first propounded by Linnaeus, so remarkable for his sagacity, and have placed man in the same Order with the Quadrumana, under the title of the Primates. The justice of this conclusion will be admitted: for in the first place, we must bear in mind the comparative insignificance for classification of the great development of the brain in man, and that the strongly marked differences between the skulls of man and the Quadrumana (lately insisted upon by [[Theodor Ludwig Wilhelm Bischoff|Bischoff]], [[Christoph Theodor Aeby|Aeby]], and others) apparently follow from their differently developed brains. In the second place, we must remember that nearly all the other and more important differences between man and the Quadrumana are manifestly adaptive in their nature, and relate chiefly to the erect position of man; such as the structure of his hand, foot, and pelvis, the curvature of his spine, and the position of his head.}}</ref> I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.}}

[[File:Antropomorpha12c.png|thumb|left|Detail from the sixth edition of ''{{lang|la|Systema Naturae}}'' (1748) describing ''[[Anthropomorpha|Ant[h]ropomorpha]]'' with a division between ''Homo'' and ''Simia'']]

The theological concerns were twofold: first, putting man at the same level as monkeys or apes would lower the spiritually higher position that man was assumed to have in the [[great chain of being]], and second, because the Bible says man was created in the [[image of God]] ([[theomorphism]]), if monkeys/apes and humans were not distinctly and separately designed, that would mean monkeys and apes were created in the image of God as well. This was something many could not accept.<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], pp. 171–172.</ref> The conflict between [[world view]]s that was caused by asserting man was a type of animal would simmer for a century until the much greater, and still ongoing, [[creation–evolution controversy]] began in earnest with the publication of ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' by [[Charles Darwin]] in 1859.

After such criticism, Linnaeus felt he needed to explain himself more clearly. The 10th edition of ''{{lang|la|Systema Naturae}}'' introduced new terms, including ''Mammalia'' and ''Primates'', the latter of which would replace ''Anthropomorpha''<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], p. 175.</ref> as well as giving humans the full binomial ''Homo sapiens''.<ref>[[#Blunt|Blunt (2004)]], p. 8.</ref> The new classification received less criticism, but many natural historians still believed he had demoted humans from their former place of ruling over nature and not being a part of it. Linnaeus believed that man biologically belongs to the animal kingdom and had to be included in it.<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], pp. 191–192.</ref> In his book ''{{lang|la|Dieta Naturalis}}'', he said, "One should not vent one's wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a [[soul]] and that the animals are mere 'automata mechanica', but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility."<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], p. 166.</ref>

{{anchor|Other Homo species}}
[[File:Hoppius Anthropomorpha.png|thumb|right|''Anthropomorpha'', from the 1760 dissertation by C. E. Hoppius<ref>C. E. Hoppius, "Anthropomorpha", ''[[Amoenitates Academicae]]'' vol. 6 (1763).</ref><br />1. Troglodyta Bontii, 2. Lucifer Aldrovandi, 3. Satyrus Tulpii, 4. Pygmaeus Edwardi]]

Linnaeus added a second species to the genus ''Homo'' in ''{{lang|la|Systema Naturae}}'' based on a figure and description by [[Jacobus Bontius]] from a 1658 publication: ''Homo troglodytes'' ("caveman")<ref>[[#L1758|Linnaeus (1758)]], p. 24.</ref><ref>[[#Bontius|Bontius (1658)]], [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/39776#page/106/mode/1up p. 84] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170721224311/http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/39776#page/106/mode/1up |date=21 July 2017 }}.</ref> and published a third in 1771: ''Homo lar''.<ref>[[#L1771|Linnaeus (1771)]], p. 521.</ref> Swedish historian [[Gunnar Broberg]] states that the new human species Linnaeus described were actually simians or native people clad in skins to frighten colonial settlers, whose appearance had been exaggerated in accounts to Linnaeus.<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], p. 187.</ref> For ''Homo troglodytes'' Linnaeus asked the [[Swedish East India Company]] to search for one, but they did not find any signs of its existence.<ref>[[#Frängsmyr|Frängsmyr ''et al.'' (1983)]], p. 186.</ref> ''Homo lar'' has since been reclassified as ''Hylobates lar'', the [[lar gibbon]].<ref>[[#Wilson|Wilson & Reeder (2005)]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=RfxoYz23lj4C&pg=PA179 p. 179].</ref>

{{anchor|Varieties of Homo sapiens}}
{{See also|Race (human categorization)}}
In the first edition of ''{{lang|la|Systema Naturae}}'', Linnaeus subdivided the human species into four [[Race (biology)|varieties]]: "Europæus albesc[ens]" (whitish European), "Americanus rubesc[ens]" (reddish American), "Asiaticus fuscus" (tawny Asian) and "Africanus nigr[iculus]" (blackish African).<ref>In later editions the naming was changed from whitish, reddish, tawny, blackish to white (albus), red (rufus), pale yellow (luridus), and black (niger). Staffan Müller-Wille "Linnaeus and the Four Corners of the World", in The Cultural Politics of Blood, 1500–1900, ed. Ralph Bauer, Kim Coles, Zit Nines, and Carla Peterson, 191–209 (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave, 2015 [https://www.academia.edu/11935913/Linnaeus_and_the_Four_Corners_of_the_World] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200624025947/https://www.academia.edu/11935913/Linnaeus_and_the_Four_Corners_of_the_World|date=24 June 2020}}</ref><ref>[[#Braziel|Braziel (2007)]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=hm9et5BiVJgC&pg=PA43 pp. 43–44].</ref>
In the tenth edition of Systema Naturae he further detailed phenotypical characteristics for each variety, based on the concept of the [[four temperaments]] from [[classical antiquity]],<ref>{{quote needed|date=May 2018}}<!--WP:BOMBARD of three references, what exactly is being referenced here, and in whose opinion are the "four temperaments" involved?-->
[[#Loring|Loring Brace (2005)]], p. 27.
[[#Slotkin|Slotkin (1965)]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=wIkOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA176 pp. 176–178].
[[#Marks|Marks (2010)]], p. 265.</ref>{{dubious|date=May 2018}} and changed the description of Asians' skin tone to "luridus" (yellow).<ref>[[#Keevak|Keevak (2011)]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZmHNk38OgDEC&pg=PA3 pp. 3–4].</ref> While Linnaeus believed that these varieties resulted from environmental differences between the four known [[Continent|continents]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Müller-Wille |first1=Staffan |title=Linnaeus and the Four Corners of the World |journal=The Cultural Politics of Blood, 1500–1900 |year=2014 |pages=191–209 |doi=10.1057/9781137338211_10|hdl=10871/16833 |isbn=978-1-349-46395-4 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> the [[The Linnean Society of London|Linnean Society]] acknowledges that his categorization's focus on [[Human skin color|skin color]] and later inclusion of [[culture|cultural]] and behavioral traits cemented [[colonialism|colonial]] stereotypes and provided the foundations for [[scientific racism]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Charmantier |first1=Isabelle |title=Linnaeus and Race |url=https://www.linnean.org/learning/who-was-linnaeus/linnaeus-and-race |website=The Linnean Society |access-date=30 November 2023 |year=2020 |archive-date=4 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230604225406/https://www.linnean.org/learning/who-was-linnaeus/linnaeus-and-race |url-status=live }}</ref> {{anchor|Monstrosus}}Additionally, Linnaeus created a [[wastebasket taxon]] "monstrosus" for "wild and monstrous humans, unknown groups, and more or less abnormal people".<ref>[[#Willoughby|Willoughby (2007)]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=dOC38AS_VfkC&pg=PA33 pp. 33–34], citing [[#Broberg1975|Broberg (1975)]], p. 291.</ref>

In 1959, [[W. T. Stearn]] designated Linnaeus to be the [[lectotype]] of ''H. sapiens''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Stearn |first=W. T. |s2cid=85221313 |author-link=William T. Stearn |year=1959 |title=The Background of Linnaeus's Contributions to the Nomenclature and Methods of Systematic Biology  |journal=Systematic Zoology |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=4–22 |doi=10.2307/sysbio/8.1.4 |jstor=2411603}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Spamer |first1=Earle E. |title=Know Thyself: Responsible Science and the Lectotype of ''Homo sapiens'' Linnaeus, 1758 |journal=Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia |year=1999 |volume=149 |pages=109–114 |jstor=4065043}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Notton |first1=David |last2=Stringer |first2=Chris |title=Who is the type of Homo sapiens? |url=http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens |website=International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature |access-date=3 December 2018 |archive-date=14 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190514111833/http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens |url-status=dead }}</ref>