The reproductive system for classifying plants , or simply the Linnaeus System [1] , or the reproductive system ( lat. Systema sexuale ) [2] , is a plant classification system proposed by the Swedish scientist Karl Linnaeus (1707-1778); also known as the Reproductive system of plants, the reproductive system of Linnaeus, the marriage system of Linnaeus. The system is built on the basis of quantitative and qualitative accounting of the sexual characteristics of plants - the characteristics of the separation of the sexes , the number of stamens and pistils , the characteristics of their fusion. 24 classes of plants are distinguished, which, in turn, are divided into orders (orders) .
The description of the system was first published in the first edition of the System of Nature (1735). The system was actively used from the middle of the 18th to the middle of the 19th century, and in educational and popular science literature - until the end of the 19th century. Despite its artificial nature, it compares favorably with other botanical classification systems of the time, including convenience in practical use. Nikolai Vavilov called the Linnaeus system “albeit artificial, but brilliant” [3] , and science historian Josef Schultes - “the triumph of reason” [4] .
Creation Background
The German botanist and physician Rudolf Camerius (1665-1721) was the first to scientifically substantiate the presence of sex differences in plants and developed a methodology for describing these differences [4] . Linnaeus - one of the few scientists of the XVIII century - appreciated and developed this doctrine [1] . When creating his own classification system, Linnaeus also used the ideas of the French botanist Sebastian Vayan (1669-1722), who, based on his research, spoke about the fundamental role of stamens and pistils in the reproduction of plants [5] .
Kurt Sprengel in his History of Botany (1817-1818) wrote that there were three prerequisites for creating the reproductive system of plants: a fairly high variety of plants known to science, a certain unification of botanical terminology, and also published by many botanists on what signs in plant classifications are significant and which are not. To substantiate the significance of precisely sexual characteristics, the opinion of the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) was important, who believed that the purpose of the plant world is to preserve both an individual individual and the species as a whole, which implies that those plant organs are of particular importance. which serve to realize this goal [6] .
Creation History
With the ideas of Sebastian Vayan about the “true purpose” of the various parts of the flower, Linnaeus was probably already familiar in Veksjo , while studying at the gymnasium: in the library of Dr. Rotman , who was preparing Linnaeus for university entrance, there was a book by Vayan. In writing, the foundations of a future reproductive classification system appeared at the end of 1729, in the second year of Linnaeus' studies at Uppsala University , in a small handwritten essay Praeludia sponsaliorum plantarum (Introduction to the sexual life of plants, Introduction to plant engagement), written in Swedish language . The first part of the essay was a review of opinions on the field of plants, while Linnaeus began with the authorities of antiquity, Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder , and ended with the botanists who studied this issue at the beginning of the XVIII century - Pitton de Tournefort and Wayan. Then Linnaeus outlined the purpose of various parts of the flower in accordance with the ideas of Vayan - he wrote about the supporting role of the petals acting as the “marriage bed” and the fundamental role in the propagation of stamens (“grooms”) and pestles (“brides”) [7 ] .
Linnaeus presented his manuscript as a New Year's gift to Professor Olof Celsius (1670-1756), a theologian and an enthusiastic amateur botanist. In the preface, Linnaeus wrote of "the great analogy that must be found between plants and animals in the reproduction of their families in a similar way." The composition aroused great interest in the academic circles of Uppsala, it was highly appreciated by the most famous botanist of that time at Uppsala University - Professor Olof Rudbeck the Younger (1660-1740) [7] .
In 1731, the development of the reproductive system for classifying plants was essentially completed by Linnaeus [8] . In 1732, Acta Litteraria Sueciae (Proceedings of the Uppsala Royal Scientific Society) published the first work to use the new system, Florula Lapponica (Brief Lapland Flora): a catalog of plants collected by Linnaeus during his expedition to Lapland [ 9] .
System Description
A description of the system for classifying plants by gender was published in the first edition of the System of Nature , published in 1735 in Leiden [1] . For a long time, the existing division of the plant kingdom into grasses and trees was rejected by him (in the system of Tournefort , which was actively used at that time, such a division existed). Linnaeus, like Vayan, believed that the most significant and unchanged (weakly dependent on growing conditions) parts of plants are their reproductive organs. Based on this, he built his classification on the basis of the number, size and location of the genital organs of plants ( pistils and stamens ), as well as on the characteristics of the separation of the sexes ( monoecious , dioecious and multi-homed ) [10] [1] .
The system consists of three parts: a key, class attributes, and also a list of genera distributed by classes [11] .
System Key
The key of the system (which is essentially a tree of Porfiry - a tree structure for illustrating the steps of a consistent deductive dichotomous division of concepts from higher to lower) from the second volume of the 12th edition of the System of Nature (1767) [12] :
| Plant marriage ... |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Class Signs
In total, Linnaeus identified 24 classes of plants. In the first 23 classes he placed plants that have visible flowers; in the last, XXIV class, all plants without flowers were placed (as the Russian botanist Ivan Martynov wrote in the Linnean System in 1821, the flowers were “barely visible and completely hidden” [13] or “contained in the fruit” [14] ) - the so-called secretive plants . The first 23 classes by Linnaeus were divided into two parts: plants with bisexual (hermaphrodite, one-year-old, that is, having one "marriage bed") flowers, that is, those that have both pistils and were placed in classes I through XX, were placed stamens; the next three classes included plants with same-sex (bipartite — that is, having two “marriage bed”) flowers — located on the same plant (XXI), on different plants (XXII), or those plants that may have same-sex flowers or bisexual (XXIII). Classes I through XIII were based on the number of stamens, with all stamens being separate and of equal length; the next two classes (XIV, XV) were distinguished by the unequal stamens length, the next three (XVI, XVII, XVIII) - by the stamen fusion. By the nineteenth class, Linnaeus attributed the plants, in the flowers of which the stamen threads remained free, and the anthers grew together; to the 20th grade - plants in which the stamens are fused with a column of pestle [15] [16] .
Class List
| Class | Class name | Russian translation of the name | Features of flowers [1] [17] , additional information | Examples of plants [1] [17] [18] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Monandriae | Single Stamens [19] Single Men [14] | Single Stamen Flowers Three orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia | Canna , Turmeric | |
| II | Diandriae | Two stamens [19] Bisexual [14] | Flowers with two stamens Three orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia | Lilac , Olive | |
| III | Triandriae | Three-stamen [19] The trimmers [14] | Three Stamen Flowers Three orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia | Bulrush , Wheat | |
| IV | Tetrandriae | Four-stamen [19] Four-frames [14] | Four-Stamen Flowers Four orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Tetragynia | Plantain , holly | |
| V | Pentandriae | Five-stamen [19] Five-Mans [14] | Five Stamen Flowers Seven orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Tetragynia, Pentagynia, Decagynia, Polygynia | Buckthorn , Beets , Umbrella | |
| VI | Hexandriae | Six-stamen [19] Six-member [14] | Six stamen flowers Six orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Tetragynia, Hexagynia, Polygynia | Daffodil , Rice | |
| VII | Heptandriae | Seven-stamen [19] The seven men [14] | Seven Stamen Flowers Four orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Tetragynia, Heptagynia | Weekly | |
| VIII | Octandriae | Eight-stamen [19] Octopus [14] | Eight Stamen Flowers Four orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Tetragynia | Vaccinium , Buckwheat | |
| IX | Enneandriae | Nine-stamens [19] Nine-Mans [14] | Flowers with nine stamens Three orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Hexagynia | Laurel , Rhubarb | |
| X | Decandriae | Ten stamens [19] Ten men [14] | Ten Stamen Flowers Six orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Tetragynia, Pentagynia, Decagynia | Saxifrage , Malpigia | |
| Xi | Dodecandriae | The Twelve Stamens [19] The Twelve [14] | Flowers with the number of stamens from 12 to 19 Seven orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Tetragynia, Pentagynia, Hexagynia, Dodecagynia | Clefthoof , Euphorbia | |
| XII | Icosandriae | Twenty stamens [19] Twenty-Girl [14] | The number of stamens is 20 or more, while they are attached to the calyx Five orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Pentagynia, Polygynia | Plum , Rosehip | |
| XIII | Poliandriae | Multi-stamen [19] Multimarriage [14] | Stamens are numerous, attached to the receptacle Seven orders (by the number of pistils): Monogynia, Digynia, Trigynia, Tetragynia, Pentagynia, Hexagynia, Polygynia | Buttercup , Poppy | |
| XIV | Didynamiae | Two-Strength [19] The dual power [14] | Two stamens are longer than the rest Three orders: Gymnospermia, Angiospermia, Polypetala | Scaffold , Laminate | |
| XV | Tetradynamiae | Four-Strength [19] Four Strength [14] | Four stamens longer than the rest Two orders: Siliculosa, Siliquosa | Cabbage | |
| XVI | Monodelphiae | Single Brothers [19] Single Brotherhood [14] | Stamens fused into one bundle (tube) Three orders: Pentandria, Decandria, Polyandria | Camellia , Passionflower | |
| XVII | Diadelphiae | Double Brotherhood [19] Double Brotherhood [14] | Stamens fused in two bundles Three orders: Hexandria, Octandria, Decandria | Dymyanka , Beans | |
| XVIII | Polyadelphiae | Multiple Brothers [19] Polygamy [14] | Stamens fused into several bundles Three orders: Pentandria, Icosandria, Polyandria | St. John's wort , Citrus | |
| XIX | Syngenesiae | Anther-anther [19] Affinity [14] | Anthers have grown together, but stamen strings remain free Five orders: Polygamia aequalis, Polygamia superflua, Polygamia frustranea, Polygamia necessaria, Monogamia | Asters | |
| XX | Gynandriae | Adhesive Anthers [19] Weed-larvae [1] Married [14] | The stamens are fused with a column of pestle Seven orders of magnitude: Diandria, Triandria, Tetrandia, Pentandria, Hexandria, Decandria, Polyandria | Kirkazon , Orchis | |
| XXI | Monoeciae | Monoecious [19] Monotomy [14] | Flowers are same-sex, while male and female flowers are on the same plant Nine orders: Monandria, Triandria, Tetrandia, Pentandria, Hexandria, Polyandria, Monadelphia, Polyadelphia, Syngenesia | Birch , Oak | |
| XXII | Dioeciae | Dioecious [19] Double House [14] | Flowers are same-sex, while male and female flowers are on different plants 13 orders: Didandria, Triandria, Tetrandia, Pentandria, Hexandria, Octandria, Enneandria, Decandria, Icosandria, Polyandria, Monadelphia, Syngenesia, Gynandria | Willow , Poplar | |
| XXIII | Polygamiae | Polygamous [19] Polygamy [14] | The plant has both bisexual and same-sex flowers Three orders: Monoecia, Dioecia, Trioecia | Persimmon , Ash | |
| XXIV | Cryptogamae | Secret Secretaries [19] Secret Chamber [14] | Lack of flowers Six orders: Plantae, Filices, Musci, Algae, Fungi, Lithophyta | Algae , Higher Spore Plants , Mushrooms |
System Development
Over time, the Linnaeus system changed - Linnaeus himself made small changes during his life, other changes were made to the system after his death. So, in the first version of the system (1735) in the XXIV class there was the order Lithophyta, which included various marine organisms leading an immobile lifestyle, but quite quickly this order was excluded from the system.
The statements of the characteristics were clarified by Linnaeus from publication to publication. The text published in the second volume of the 12th edition of the System of Nature (1767) is considered the most perfect. From publication to publication, the number of genera listed in the plant classification system has also increased - in this publication, the list of “Genera of classes” occupied 22 pages [11] .
System Assessment
The drawback of the system, which Linnaeus himself was aware of, was its artificial character [20] - such, however, were all other classification systems known by that time [1] , including the Cesalpino system (based on the characteristics and structure of fruits and seeds ) the Ray system (taking into account various plant characteristics, including the structure of fruits and perianth, as well as the life form) and the Turnery system (built on the structure of the perianth ). In all these systems, including the Linnaeus system, taking into account the key features for this system turned out to be insufficient to establish natural connections between systematic plant groups. However, the key feature of the Linnaeus system - the characteristics of the genital organs of the plant - turned out to be more significant compared to the key features of previous systems, as well as more visual and convenient for practical use [1] [20] , and even unprofessional people could understand the terminology and methodology of its application. naturalists [21] . Under the conditions of the urgent need for descriptive works on the inventory of plant world objects in the 18th century, such a system favorably differed from the previous ones, especially in the context of more accurate terminology and a simpler binominal botanical nomenclature (starting from the second half of the 18th century) [10] .
The reformist activity of Linnaeus was perceived ambiguously in the botanical world. As Emil Winkler wrote in his History of Botany (1854) about the period preceding the appearance of the system, at that time many scientists spoke about the two floors of plants, especially since after Sebastian Vayan there was a conviction that the theory of fertilization was correct, “but that the botanist , and besides, such a young man as Linnaeus was then dared with strict sequence to distinguish between male and female sex in plants and build a new system on this difference - it was something completely unheard of ” [22] . The debate over the Linnaeus system continued for many years and many authoritative scientists from different countries were involved in them. The doctrine of the sexual process in plants was in doubt; in addition, there were botanists who spoke out that the new doctrine was immoral, and therefore should be discarded [23] . Johann Sigizbek , director of the Botanical Garden in St. Petersburg , wrote in 1737 that “God would never have allowed such an immoral fact in the plant kingdom that several husbands (stamens) have one wife (pestle). Learning young people should not be presented with such an unchaste system ” [24] . According to the Austrian science historian Joseph Schultes , the most thorough and, at the same time, the most rude enemy of Linnaeus was the German botanist and physician Friedrich Medicus (1736-1808); working on the creation of his own plant classification system, in which there were simultaneously signs of both artificial (like Linnaeus) and natural systems, Medicus, according to Schultes, used every opportunity to improve Linnaeus for his censure [25] . The well-known Swiss botanist, physician and poet Albrecht Haller (1708-1777) criticized Linnaeus sharply [4] . Также критиковавший Линнея Кристиан Готтлиб Людвиг (1709—1773) занимался разработкой своей системы, в которой пытался соединить системы Линнея и Ривинуса [26] . Другие ботаники высказывали различные соображения относительно того, как следует улучшить систему Линнея, свои варианты усовершенствования предлагали ученики и соратники Линнея — в частности, Карл Тунберг и Иоганн Гледич [27] .
В целом новая система классификации растений быстро завоевала признание и распространилась во всём мире, став во второй половине XVIII века почти общепризнанной [28] . По сравнению с теми классификациями, которые использовались до неё, система Линнея представляла собой существенный шаг вперёд; именно с её помощью в науке были преодолены хаос и неопределённость, царившие в систематике растений в начале XVIII века [23] . Исследования Йозефа Кёльрейтера по гибридизации у растений, проводившиеся во второй половине XVIII века, казалось бы, окончательно закрыли вопрос о существовании пола у растений и значении для процесса размножения различных частей растительного организма, однако в начале XIX века снова стали появляться работы с критикой половой системы Линнея, при этом ставился под сомнение сам факт существования пола у растений. Немецкие ботаники Франц Шельфер (1778—1832) и (1790—1856) доказывали, что для образования семян в растениях требуется не пыльца, а различные природные силы, а потому нет никаких оснований говорить про сходство процессов размножения у растений и животных. Из факта существования растений, у которых имеются как цветки только с пестиками, так и цветки только с тычинками, Шефлер делал вывод о ненужности тычинок для плодоношения, причём преподносил эту идею как очевидную. По мнению советского ботаника Евгения Вульфа , идеи работы Шельфера «Критика учения о поле у растений» отбрасывали учение о поле у растений к началу XVII столетия [29] . Николай Вавилов называл их критику легкомысленной, однако отмечал, что под их влияние попал даже великий Иоганн Вольфганг Гёте [30] .
Сам Линней воспринимал свою систему в первую очередь как служебную, имеющую практическое значение [31] , предназначенную «для диагноза» [15] . Стремление же к построению естественной системы (системы, построенной по «естественному методу») Линней считал «первым и последним, к чему стремится ботаника», объясняя это тем, что «природа не делает скачков», а все растения «проявляют друг к другу сродство» [32] . Линней выделял естественные группы в своих работах (например, 67 групп, приведённых в « Философии ботаники »), однако при этом замечал, что это лишь «фрагменты» естественного метода и они «требуют изучения» [32] . По мнению историка Доннемана, ученики и последователи Линнея стали, к сожалению, рассматривать систему классификации Линнея как венец естествознания, не учитывая мнения самого создателя этой системы и видя основной целью своей деятельности познание как можно большего числа видов. В результате система Линнея со временем стала служить тормозом на пути развития науки — и такое положение наблюдалось до момента признания научным миром естественной системы классификации растений, разработанной Огюстеном Декандолем в 1820-е и 1830-е годы на основе систем Бернара Жюссьё и Антуана Жюссьё [31] .
Использование системы Линнея продолжалось и в первой половине XIX века [33] , но к середине XIX века она уже стала пережитком [28] . В России в научной ботанической литературе эта система применялась со второй половины XVIII века до 1830-х годов [15] , а в учебной и научно-популярной литературе — до конца XIX века [21] .
Ботаник Иван Мартынов в своём сочинении «Три ботаника», вышедшем в 1821 году, писал, что в растительном царстве «сияют, как три великие светила, три систематика — Турнефор , Линней и Жюссьё », — прочие же «озаряют таинства природы, заимствуя свет свой от лучей сих гениев». Без понимания системы каждого из них, по мнению Мартынова, невозможно увидеть «зачатия методического познания сего царства» [34] . Непосредственно о системе Линнея Мартынов писал: «одарённый от природы всеми талантами, потребными для произведения переворота в Ботанике; одушевляемый деятельным умом, не позволяющим себе никакого покоя, когда ему остаётся что-либо увидеть или открыть, сокращая труд разыскания тем быстрым и точным взором, который всегда представляет предмет под надлежащею точкою зрения, Линней, дознав из многих опытов, что тычинки и пестики были истинными, едиными половыми органами растений, с выгодою воспользовался признаками сих двух органов для создания остроумной Системы, в коей все прозябаемые [то есть растения] сами, так сказать, ставятся на приличное им место» [35] .
Notes
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bazilevskaya et al., 1968 , p. 31.
- ↑ Martynov, 1821 , Linnaeus, p. 70.
- ↑ Vavilov, 1940 , p. 6.
- ↑ 1 2 3 Lebedev, 1986 , Joseph Schultes, p. 28.
- ↑ Lebedev, 1986 , Edward Lee Green, p. 151-152.
- ↑ Lebedev, 1986 , Kurt Sprengel, p. 17.
- ↑ 1 2 Beavers, 1970 , p. 24-30.
- ↑ Store norske leksikon, 2016 .
- ↑ Bobrov, 1970 , p. 37.
- ↑ 1 2 Linnaeus Carl (article in the 3rd ed. TSB), 1973 .
- ↑ 1 2 Beavers, 1970 , p. 86.
- ↑ Bobrov, 1970 , p. 87.
- ↑ Martynov, 1821 , Linnaeus, p. 73.
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Martynov, 1821 , Linnaeus, p. b / n (Shortened table of the reproductive system of Linnaeus).
- ↑ 1 2 3 Bazilevskaya et al., 1968 , p. 32.
- ↑ Bobrov, 1970 .
- ↑ 1 2 Genkel A.G. Tychinka // Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary : in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - SPb. , 1890-1907.
- ↑ Martynov, 1821 , Linnaeus, p. 78-128.
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Linnaeus, 1989 , § 68, p. thirty.
- ↑ 1 2 Knipovich, 1890-1907 .
- ↑ 1 2 Beavers, 1970 , p. 90.
- ↑ Vavilov, 1940 , p. 14.
- ↑ 1 2 Wulf, 1940 , p. 14.
- ↑ Danneman, 1938 , p. 69.
- ↑ Lebedev, 1986 , Joseph Schultes, p. 29.
- ↑ Lebedev, 1986 , Kurt Sprengel, p. 17-18.
- ↑ Lebedev, 1986 , Gottlieb Bischoff, p. 37.
- ↑ 1 2 Starlings, 2007 .
- ↑ Wulf, 1940 , p. 36.
- ↑ Vavilov, 1940 , p. 6-7.
- ↑ 1 2 Danneman, 1938 , p. 70.
- ↑ 1 2 Linnaeus, 1989 , § 77, p. 32–41.
- ↑ Bazilevskaya et al., 1968 , p. 31–32.
- ↑ Martynov, 1821 , Preface, p. I.
- ↑ Martynov, 1821 , Linnaeus, p. 66.
Literature
- Linnaeus Karl // Kuhn - Lomami. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1973. - (The Great Soviet Encyclopedia : [in 30 vol.] / Ch. Ed. A. M. Prokhorov ; 1969-1978, vol. 14).
- Knipovich N.M. Linney // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron : 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - SPb. , 1890-1907.
- Bazilevskaya N.A. , Belokon I.P. , Shcherbakova A.A. Chapter 3. Systematics of plants // A Brief History of Botany : [ arch. March 23, 2016 ] / Ans. ed. L.V. Kudryashov. - M .: Nauka, 1968 .-- S. 26–41. - 311 p. - (Proceedings of the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Volume XXXI. Department of Biology. Section of Botany). - 8500 copies.
- Bobrov E.G. Reproductive system of plants // Karl Linney. 1707-1778 : [ arch. March 22, 2016 ]. - L .: Nauka, 1970 .-- pp. 82–90. - 285 p. - 7000 copies.
- Vavilov N.I. Preface to the publication of the works of Kölreiter and Kameriarius // Joseph Kölreiter. The doctrine of the field and plant hybridization : [ arch. March 22, 2016 ] / Under the total. ed. N. I. Vavilova , under the editorship of E.V. Wulfa . - M .: OGIZ - Selkhozgiz, 1940. - S. 5-7. - 247 p. - 5,000 copies.
- Wulf E.V. Joseph Kölreuter, his life and scientific works (1733-1806) // Joseph Kölreuter. The doctrine of the field and plant hybridization : [ arch. March 22, 2016 ] / Under the total. ed. N. I. Vavilova , under the editorship of E.V. Wulfa . - M .: OGIZ - Selkhozgiz, 1940. - S. 35-40. - 247 p. - 5,000 copies.
- Danneman F. Descriptive natural science under the dominance of the artificial system // History of Natural History: Natural Sciences in their Development and Interconnection : [ arch. March 23, 2016 ] / Per. from the 2nd German edition of P. S. Yushkevich. - M.— L. : ONTI NKTP USSR, 1938. - T. III. - S. 65-71. - 357 p. - 15,000 copies.
- Lebedev D.V. Essays on Botanical Historiography (XIX - early XX centuries) : [ arch. March 15, 2016 ] / Ans. ed. M. E. Kirpichnikov . - L .: Nauka, 1986 .-- 165 p. - 1600 copies.
- Linney K. Philosophy of Botany : [ arch. March 8, 2016 ] / Per. with latin. N. N. Zabinkova , S. V. Sapozhnikova, ed. M. E. Kirpichnikova ; ed. preparation. I.E. Amlinsky . - M .: Nauka, 1989 .-- 456 p. - (Monuments of the history of science. Subseries Monuments of the history of science). - ISBN 5-02-003943-8 .
- Martynov I.I. March 8, 2016 ]. - SPb. : Printing House of the Department of Education, 1821. - 239 p.
- Skvortsov A.K. At the Origins of Systematics. To the 300th anniversary of Karl Linnaeus : [ arch. April 24, 2014 ] // Nature : journal. - 2007. - No. 4. - S. 3-10.
- Shaparenko K.K. On the role of Linnaeus in the development of botany. (On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the first edition of Systema Naturae) : [ arch. March 5, 2014 ] // Nature : journal. - 1935. - No. 7. - S. 68—77.
- Linnés Pflanzensystem : [ arch. March 23, 2016 ] // Pierer's Universal-Lexikon der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart oder Neuestes encyclopädisches Wörterbuch der Wissenschaften, Künste und Gewerbe : [ him. ] . - 4., umgearbeitete und stark vermehrte Auflage. - Altenburg: Verlagsbuchhandlung von HA Pierer, 1860. - Bd. 10: Lackfarbe - Matelea.
Links
- Løkken S., Eckblad F.-E. Carl Von Linné (Nor.) . Store norske leksikon (September 6, 2016). Date of treatment February 11, 2017. Archived February 11, 2017.