Rank and sequence in Caspar Bauhin's Pinax

• Published in: Botanical journal of the Linnean Society Vol. 114; no. 4; pp. 311 - 356
• Main Author: Cain, A.J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.1994; Academic Press
• Subjects: Affinity; Biological and medical sciences; chain; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects, nomenclature, methods, herbaria; historical records; Linnaeus; logical rank -multiverbal names; pendants; Plant cytology, morphology, systematics, chorology and evolution; taxonomists; typographical rank; Flora; Taxonomy; Case history; Nomenclature; Typography
• ISSN: 0024-4074; 1095-8339
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.1994.tb01839.x

CAIN, A. J., 1994. Rank and sequence in Caspar Bauhin's Pinax. Bauhin's consistent use of genera, species and binominals, applauded by historians as anticipating Linnaeus's theory and practice, does not appear on closer examination to be intended as anything of the sort. His use of the terms genus and species is as in Aristotelian logic, with a shifting reference, at all taxonomic levels. His typographical layout, emphasizing (but far from invariably employing) single‐word names for effectively generic entities, often qualified by ‘and its species’, gives the impression of Linnaean practice, and coincides with it not infrequently, but not with Linnaean theory. The main entities for which it can be said that Bauhin uses fairly consistently a biverbal binominal name‐phrase, like Linnaeus' trivial names, were in fact in Linnaeus's eyes two levels of supraspecific groupings. The main entities in Bauhin which Linnaeus recognized as species, as is shown by his quotations in the Species plantarum, are subdivisions of his biverbally or nearly biverbally named groupings, but themselves have multiverbal names. These correspond closely to Linnaeus's diagnostic specific names, not at all to his biverbal trivial names. Bauhin probably had no conception of the species and genus as ranks in the modern sense, first adumbrated by Tournefort and utilized by Linnaeus. Bauhin certainly tried to group forms by natural affinity, as did Theophrastus before him and Linnaeus afterwards. Not being alerted to the importance of the details of the flower and fruit, he used what characters he could find, notably, but not by any means exclusively, leaf shape. He composed the Pinax as a nomenclatural concordance to earlier authors, notably Dioscorides, Theophrastus and Pliny. He retained the sequence of major groups of Theophrastus (as the greatest authority on plants) but reversed it to start with the best‐known plants, grasses. Where Theophrastus gave no help, in the cryptogams, Bauhin inserted as a pendant his own series from ferns down to fungi, using the Aristotelian principles of the gradation of forms. His overall arrangement, therefore, is not a simple progression but a chain with pendants. Bauhin is far closer to earlier authors than to Linnaeus, but his typography, along with other authors, may well have helped to incite Linnaeus to a more rigorous and consistent use of ranked groups and biverbal names.