Species Plantarum, tomus 1
Colden’s Coldenghamiae work is referenced around 25 times in the first volume of Species Plantarum produced by ‘Linnaei’ (Carl von Linne or Linnaeus) in 1764. The following are illustrations of these examples. For most examples, the entire page is provided; two pages are provided when the particular plant under review was so written. The following are important features to make note of about Linneaus’s and Colden’s work:
- This review of Colden writings includes two of the several plants which Colden entered into his treatise on Coldengham without any identification. These he referred to simply as the identifier Anonymi. With this review of Linne’s work, these two species noted by Colden can now be identified.
- One of the most important features to note about is Linnaeus’s method of presenting the final binomial botanical name he would define for each plant. With this presentation of this information, we are able to see the final name he chose and how the various other versions of a particular plant’s name played into his final decision for a species name. Also notice, Colden did not provide any traditional Genus species nomenclature like we are often led to believe by other writers of his biographies. Colden favored Linnaeus’s work, including that which led to the use of binomial Latin nomenclature, but he rarely made use of this naming method himself, except when he had very little to say. Instead. Colden stood by the traditional system in use by colleagues like Gronovius, providing a name for a plant using several phrases.
- Another detail to note about the taxonomy work in Species Plantarum is that, in general, botanists rarely define the what ends up to be the final name for a plants. This is because everyone had their own take on the plant to provide Linnaeus with, making this process at times seem very much like a professional game of sorts, with many participants. The more taxonomists you competed with for this recognition for a particular region, the less likely your name would become the final official description.
The general rules which Linnaeus defined and adhered to when selecting the final names were well understood throughout this taxonomy-centered world exploration process. Linnaeus was to use the first name that a botanist provided for a specimen when it was correctly applied and could be related to a pressed plant specimen submitted to Linnaeus for review. This specimen had to be provided in the appropriate form, and be in such a condition so as to allow for subsequent evaluation and identification by Linnaeus to take place. Finally, provided its developer correctly performed these tasks, the names themselves had to be correct. Once this information was submitted and verified by Linnaeus, he would use it to define the binomial name for this species. Recognition for this name was in turn rewarded to the initial founder of this plant who also produced the samples in the right format and manner. Later, when the use of polynomial naming/description was completely ceased, the original botanist to document the plant for the first time using a binomial method had to rights to defining its first binomial name.
Finally, one has to also note that for the first several decades of this stage in the development of Linnaeus’s taxonomic methods, names would undergo repeated chagnes. It wasn’t until probably about 1840 or 1850 that this naming method became solidified, thereby negating any professional arguments that took place back and forth between peers and professionals. A significant number of plants between 1825 and 1875 experienced names changes due to such politics. By the end of the 19th century, even fewer underwent these arguments, but this practice never really left the taxonomic profession entirely, including even now during the twenty-first century. And so it goes.
.
.
The following pages review the primary documents used as references by Linnaeus. Note that Linnaeus divides these references into 3 groups: Reformators, Restaurators and Fundatores. Colden is of the Reformative type. The most basic plant identifiers, all from the 1600s and very early 1700s, are considered the providers of groundwork for this field (i.e. the “classics”). The Restaurators (synonymous with restorative taxonomists?) fall somewhre in between these two groups.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Brian Altonen, MPH, MS 
