Binomial Nomenclature: The Universal Language of Species Classification

I. Introduction

The study of biological classification is fundamental to understanding the vast diversity of life on Earth. At the heart of this system lies binomial nomenclature, a method introduced by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century, which provides a standardized approach to naming species using Latin-based terms. This formal system not only encapsulates the identity of organisms but also reflects their evolutionary relationships, enhancing scientific communication across linguistic boundaries. By assigning each species a unique two-part name—comprising the genus and species identifiers—binomial nomenclature creates an universal lexicon for scientists, enabling clarity and precision in research and discussion. In exploring the intricacies of this classification system, we uncover not only its historical significance but also its continuing relevance in modern taxonomy, illustrated by the rigorous organization of life forms evident in resources such as , which exemplifies early systematic attempts at categorizing biodiversity. This foundation sets the stage for a comprehensive examination of how binomial nomenclature shapes our understanding of the natural world.

Image1 : Linnaean Classification of Animals from ‘Regnum Animale’ – The image is a historical document representing an excerpt from ‘Regnum Animale’ by Carl Linnaeus, illustrating his classification system for animals. It is organized into categories such as Quadrupedia (Quadrupeds), Aves (Birds), Amphibia (Amphibians), Pisces (Fish), Insecta (Insects), and Vermes (Worms). Each category lists various species along with their Latin names, reflecting the taxonomy developed by Linnaeus in the 18th century. Additionally, the document contains a section labeled ‘Paradoxa,’ which discusses specific classifications and peculiarities regarding certain animal groups. This image serves as a significant reference for understanding the foundation of modern taxonomy and the historical context of biological classification.

A. Definition and significance of binomial nomenclature

The foundation of binomial nomenclature, established by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century, serves as a pivotal system for naming and classifying organisms, aiding scientific communication across linguistic and cultural boundaries. This method utilizes a two-part Latin name, comprising the genus and species, to provide each organism with a unique identity, ensuring clarity and consistency in the field of biology. Significantly, binomial nomenclature not only streamlines the identification process but also reflects an organisms evolutionary relationships within a broader taxonomic framework. As highlighted in various studies, retaining language-based taxonomic classification is critical in preserving the richness of biological categorization unlike the reductionist numeric identification systems emerging in modern science (Kelley et al.). Furthermore, exploring historical plant names, contextualized as cultural artifacts, underlines the importance of nomenclature in encapsulating ecological knowledge and community values (Wesseler et al.). Thus, binomial nomenclature remains a quintessential tool in the universal language of species classification.

Category	Importance	Example
Description	Provides a universal naming system	Homo sapiens
Description	Reduces confusion in species identification	Panthera leo
Description	Facilitates clear communication among scientists	Quercus robur
Description	Offers insights into species relationships	Salmo salar
Description	Supports consistency in scientific literature	Aves (birds)

Significance of Binomial Nomenclature

B. Role in standardizing species classification globally.

The implementation of binomial nomenclature plays a pivotal role in the standardization of species classification on a global scale. By employing a uniform system of naming, established by Carl Linnaeus, scientists can communicate more effectively across diverse linguistic backgrounds and regions, thus fostering international collaboration in biological research. This global standardization not only facilitates the identification and categorization of organisms but also ensures that the vast array of biodiversity is systematically arranged in an understandable manner. As noted, taxonomy work is strategic work: it enables efficient and interoperable retrieval and sharing of data (Serrat et al.). Furthermore, the integration of diverse taxonomic frameworks allows for a more cohesive understanding of evolutionary relationships, urging scholars to consider both aesthetic and historical contexts in species classification (Porter et al.). This overarching framework, ingrained in the binomial system, ultimately enhances our comprehension of life itself.

II. Historical Development of Binomial Nomenclature

The historical development of binomial nomenclature represents a crucial turning point in biological classification, reflecting changes in scientific thought and the necessity for clarity in species identification. Pioneered by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century, this system introduced a standardized method for naming organisms using a two-part Latin format, enhancing both precision and communication within the scientific community. Notably, Linnaeus grappled with the tension between the idea of fixed species and the emerging thoughts on the evolution of plant morphology, as indicated by Goethe’s reflections on species stability and variability (Kelley et al.). The growing understanding of taxonomys complexity revealed the inherent ambiguities associated with classifying life forms, suggesting a pragmatic balance between precision and flexibility in nomenclature systems (Franz et al.). This evolution in nomenclature not only facilitated a universal language among scientists but also underscored the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry itself, shaping our approach to biodiversity and taxonomy.

The chart illustrates the evolution of scientific thought and the influence of Goethe over different time periods. It highlights key developments in scientific methodologies, the standardization of naming, concepts of species, and the varying influence attributed to Goethe from the 1700s to the present day. The y-axis represents the increasing influence of Goethe, which ranges from minimal to extreme, while the x-axis denotes the corresponding years. This visualization provides insight into how scientific understanding and nomenclature have transformed over time.

A. The contributions of Carl Linnaeus to species classification

Carl Linnaeuss contributions to species classification revolutionized the field of taxonomy, laying the groundwork for modern biological nomenclature. By developing the binomial nomenclature system, he introduced a standardized method for naming organisms—a practice that curtails confusion and enhances communication among scientists globally. This innovation not only facilitated more systematic organization of species but also highlighted the relational aspect of different organisms, fostering a deeper understanding of biodiversity. Additionally, Linnaeuss meticulous work in categorizing species through hierarchical classification underscored the importance of a structured approach to biological diversity. However, the representation and interpretation of this classification are shaped by historical and theoretical contexts, complicating our understanding of its application in contemporary research ((Rogers et al.)). Furthermore, the balance between precision and ambiguity in taxonomic nomenclature reflects ongoing challenges in aggregating biological data, illustrating Linnaeus’s enduring influence on modern scientific discourse ((Franz et al.)).

The chart illustrates the key contributions to taxonomy over various historical periods, including notable advancements in taxonomy, development processes, standardization effects, and understanding of biodiversity. Each category is represented by distinct bars, allowing for easy comparison of contributions from 1735 to present day.

B. Evolution of naming conventions and their impact on taxonomy

The evolution of naming conventions has fundamentally transformed the landscape of taxonomy, particularly through the formalization of binomial nomenclature introduced by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century. This system not only created a standardized method for naming organisms but also provided a universal language that transcends regional linguistic barriers, facilitating global scientific communication. Over time, however, complications have arisen, especially in fields such as virology, where the International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses has developed its taxonomy guidelines. These guidelines underscore a divergence from traditional taxonomic practices, resulting in parallel naming conventions that can obscure clarity and consistency in scientific discourse (Simmonds et al.). Moreover, the challenges in community-adopted naming practices signify a need for further refinement in taxonomy, as seen in horticulture education where correct nomenclature is essential for identifying species accurately and ensuring effective communication among practitioners (Nakano et al.). This ongoing evolution highlights the critical interplay between naming conventions and taxonomic clarity.

III. Structure and Rules of Binomial Nomenclature

The structure and rules of binomial nomenclature play a crucial role in the standardized identification of species, fostering clarity and consistency in scientific communication. Introduced by Carl Linnaeus, this naming system assigns each species a unique two-part name comprising the genus and species epithet, which serves to minimize confusion arising from common names. The genus name is capitalized and italicized, while the species epithet follows in lowercase and is also italicized. These conventions not only enable efficient classification but also reflect the relationships among organisms, as seen in various classifications, including those maintained by the International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) that adopts similar structural principles, albeit with nuances pertinent to viral taxa (Simmonds et al.). However, the complexity underlying this system can foster ambiguity, as discussed, reflecting the balance between precision and adaptability necessary for comprehensive biodiversity data (Franz et al.).

Genus	Species	Family	Order	Description
Homo	sapiens	Hominidae	Primates	Modern human
Canis	lupus	Canidae	Carnivora	Gray wolf
Felis	catus	Felidae	Carnivora	Domestic cat
Quercus	robur	Fagaceae	Fagales	English oak
Eucalyptus	globulus	Myrtaceae	Myrtales	Tasmanian blue gum

Binomial Nomenclature Examples

A. Explanation of the two-part naming system (genus and species)

The binomial nomenclature system, proposed by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century, serves as a methodical means of naming species through a two-part format that includes the genus and species identifiers. Each organism is designated a unique Latin name, the first component denoting the genus—an overarching category that groups closely related species—while the second identifies the specific species within that genus. This systematic approach enhances clarity and reduces confusion in biological classification, allowing for precise communication among scientists globally. Such uniformity is critical, especially in fields like horticulture, where proper identification and terminology are essential for successful plant cultivation and study ((Nakano et al.), (N/A)). Consequently, the binomial naming system fosters a comprehensive understanding of biodiversity, reinforcing its significance as the universal language in the ongoing endeavor to classify and understand the variety of life on Earth.

Genus	Species	Common Name	Family
Homo	sapiens	Human	Hominidae
Panthera	leo	Lion	Felidae
Felis	catus	Domestic Cat	Felidae
Canis	lupus	Gray Wolf	Canidae
Equus	caballus	Horse	Equidae
Pan	troglodytes	Common Chimpanzee	Hominidae
Gallus	gallus	Chicken	Phasianidae

Common Examples of Binomial Nomenclature

B. Importance of standardized rules and international codes in nomenclature

In the realm of species classification, the establishment of standardized rules and international codes is paramount, serving as the backbone for effective communication and consistency among scientists globally. These regulations not only foster collaboration across various fields of biological research but also mitigate the confusion stemming from the diverse common names used for species. For instance, the International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) has recognized the necessity of a structured approach to virus nomenclature, emphasizing that formal taxonomic distinctions must be maintained to ensure clarity and reliability within the virology community (Simmonds et al.). This aligns with the broader observation that while precision in nomenclature is essential, understanding the trade-offs between precision and ambiguity can significantly enhance our data infrastructures (Franz et al.). Therefore, standardized nomenclature enhances both scientific discourse and the practical applications of taxonomy, ultimately contributing to a more coherent understanding of biodiversity.

Code	Full Name	Established	Purpose	Last Updated
ICZN	International Code of Zoological Nomenclature	1901	Rules for naming animal species.	2012
ICN	International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants	1956	Rules for naming plants and fungi.	2019
ICNP	International Code of Nomenclature for Prokaryotes	2001	Rules for naming prokaryotic organisms.	2019
ICZN (current edition)	International Code of Zoological Nomenclature	1901	Ensures stability in naming animal taxa.	2021
ICN (current edition)	International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants	1956	Facilitates communication in botany and mycology.	2022

International Codes of Nomenclature Overview

IV. Applications and Implications of Binomial Nomenclature

The applications of binomial nomenclature extend far beyond mere classification; they enable researchers to engage in efficient communication regarding biodiversity, which is crucial in scientific discourse. By employing a standardized system of naming, scientists mitigate confusion stemming from the common names, which can vary by region and language. As indicated, Taxonomy work is strategic work: it enables efficient and interoperable retrieval and sharing of data (Serrat et al.). This systematic approach facilitates not only the identification of species but also the sharing of ecological data essential for conservation efforts and biological research. Furthermore, the implications of binomial nomenclature intertwine with the challenges posed by ambiguity in scientific language; ambiguity does have a positive role to play in scientific progress (Franz et al.). This duality emphasizes the necessity of understanding both precise classification and theoretical frameworks, ultimately enriching the study of life sciences and biodiversity management.

The chart illustrates the evolution of communication in biodiversity, challenges in classification, data sharing, and conservation efforts over the years from 2000 to a projected future of 2030 and beyond. It visually represents the progression in these areas, showing how each aspect has changed in significance over time. The stacked categories reflect the increasing complexity and importance of these factors in biodiversity management.

A. Role in biodiversity conservation and ecological research

The role of binomial nomenclature in biodiversity conservation and ecological research cannot be overstated, as it provides a universal language that facilitates clear communication among researchers and policymakers. This system allows for the precise identification of species, which is essential for effective conservation strategies aimed at preserving habitat and species diversity. Notably, studies highlight the implications of nomenclature on ecological research, particularly concerning species interactions and ecosystem dynamics. For instance, understanding the dynamics of invasive species, such as the ship rat (Rattus rattus), necessitates accurate taxonomy to inform effective management practices ((Arnold et al.)). Furthermore, addressing ethical concerns surrounding nomenclature, particularly historical biases, is critical for fostering an inclusive scientific environment. Proposals for reforming taxonomy to eliminate offensive terms can enhance public engagement and awareness of biodiversity issues ((Demissew et al.)). Thus, binomial nomenclature serves as a foundational tool for advancing conservation efforts and promoting ecological literacy.

Year	Species described	Species threatened	Biodiversity hotspots
2020	1800	14158	36
2021	1700	14235	36
2022	1900	14486	36
2023	2000	14700	36

Biodiversity Conservation Metrics

B. Influence on communication among scientists and researchers globally

The global scientific community relies heavily on binomial nomenclature as a fundamental tool for communication, fostering a common language that transcends regional dialects and cultural differences. This universal system, introduced by Linnaeus, simplifies the identification of species by employing standardized Latin names, which are crucial for precise communication among researchers. However, challenges abound, highlighted by concerns over the adequacy of taxonomic funding and the diminishing recruitment of new taxonomists, which hampers the development of this system (cite22). Such issues underscore the significance of improving methodologies and embracing innovative practices to ensure that taxonomy remains relevant and informative. Further, the interplay between precision and ambiguity in naming conventions reveals a complex landscape where language serves not only as a tool for classification but also as a medium that accommodates scientific discourse and negotiation, thus shaping our collective understanding of biodiversity (cite21).

Region	Number of Scientific Publications	Percentage Using Binomial Nomenclature
North America	15000	95
Europe	20000	98
Asia	12000	90
Africa	5000	85
South America	8000	88
Australia	7000	92

Global Influence of Binomial Nomenclature on Scientific Communication

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, binomial nomenclature stands as an indispensable framework for the classification and communication of living organisms. Its systematic approach not only streamlines identification but also fosters a common language among scientists, thereby transcending linguistic barriers. As biological research increasingly leans on genomic sequencing and other quantitative methodologies, there is a risk of reducing the rich complexity of taxonomy to mere numerical data, as asserted in the discussion of color taxonomy that warns against such simplifications (Kelley et al.). Moreover, the development of digital applications, such as those enhancing arachnid identification processes, exemplifies how technology can aid in maintaining robust taxonomic practices while accommodating modern needs (Oliveira et al.). Retaining the nuanced language of species classification is essential, as it encapsulates vital biological relationships that numerical systems may overlook, ensuring a more holistic understanding of biodiversity in our rapidly changing world.

Common Name	Scientific Name	Family	Order	Habitat
House Cat	Felis catus	Felidae	Carnivora	Domestic
Common Dog	Canis lupus familiaris	Canidae	Carnivora	Domestic
American Black Bear	Ursus americanus	Ursidae	Carnivora	Forests, Mountains
African Elephant	Loxodonta africana	Elephantidae	Proboscidea	Savannahs, Forests
Giant Panda	Ailuropoda melanoleuca	Ursidae	Carnivora	Bamboo Forests
Bald Eagle	Haliaeetus leucocephalus	Accipitridae	Accipitriformes	Open Water, Forests

Species Classification Example Data

A. Summary of the importance of binomial nomenclature in science

The significance of binomial nomenclature in scientific discourse cannot be overstated, as it establishes a universal framework crucial for accurate biological classification. This system, developed by Carl Linnaeus, assigns each species a two-part Latin name, facilitating clear communication and reducing ambiguity across linguistic and regional barriers. Such precision is vital, particularly in research and conservation efforts, where misidentification can lead to detrimental ecological outcomes or misallocation of resources. With the advancement of digital applications in taxonomy, including those designed for arachnid identification, the efficiency of binomial nomenclature is amplified, allowing both professionals and amateurs to swiftly classify specimens ((Oliveira et al.)). Furthermore, the reliance on quantitative characteristics alone in genomic sequencing risks oversimplifying taxonomic classification, as it neglects the complexities captured in language-based nomenclature ((Kelley et al.)). Therefore, binomial nomenclature remains foundational in maintaining the integrity and richness of species identification and biological study.

B. Debates on Naming Conventions

The debates surrounding naming conventions reveal a critical intersection between scientific precision and the practical implications of binomial nomenclature. While traditional biological naming adheres to Latinized formats, exemplified by the established system utilized across botanical, zoological, and prokaryotic domains, the recent adaptations within virology have sparked considerable controversy. The International Committee for the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) seeks to impose a structured approach to naming, yet its dissimilarity in format and the lack of regulations for classifications below the species level complicate clarity within the field (Simmonds et al.). Moreover, attempts to align virus names with Linnaean principles face challenges, as evidenced by efforts to convert established viral names into appropriate binomials, which not only emphasizes the nuanced nature of classification but also the ensuing confusion in interpretation within the scientific community (Romanowski et al.). Such debates underscore the necessity for a cohesive framework that balances historical conventions with contemporary scientific realities.

DebateIssue	ProCommonName	ConCommonName	ProScientificName	ConScientificName
Use of Common vs. Scientific Names	Increased accessibility for the public	Lack of precision and variability	Standardization across languages and regions	Complexity for non-experts
Changes to Established Names	Reflects new scientific understanding and classifications	Causes confusion and disrupts continuity in research	Facilitates consistent communication across studies	Hinders updates that reflect evolutionary relationships
Authority of Naming Bodies	Ensures reliability and uniformity	May suppress local knowledge and usage	Allows for culturally relevant naming	Risks inconsistency and misunderstandings
Use of Latin vs. Vernacular Languages	Provides a universal reference point	Can be intimidating and inaccessible	Encourages local engagement and education	May lead to multiple names for the same species

Debates on Naming Conventions in Binomial Nomenclature

C. Limitations of the System

The binomial nomenclature system, while fundamental in species classification, reveals notable limitations that challenge its universality. One significant issue is the inherent ambiguity that arises from the theory-dependence of taxonomic nomenclature. Such ambiguity can obscure the accurate identification of species, particularly in cases where definitions rely on subjective interpretations of characteristics, resulting in inconsistent classifications across different regions and disciplines. Furthermore, the classification of viruses underscores the systems shortcomings as viruses exhibit unique properties that complicate their categorization; discrepancies arise in how terms such as virion and virus species are defined and utilized within the scientific community, reflecting the limitations of applying traditional binomial nomenclature to non-living entities (Bos et al.). Additionally, efforts to aggregate biological data may inadvertently lead to confusion, diminishing the precision afforded by binomial nomenclature while emphasizing the need for improved classification frameworks (Franz et al.). Thus, these challenges highlight the necessity for a more adaptable and comprehensive approach to species classification.

D. Reflection on its ongoing relevance in modern taxonomy and species classification

As the foundation of modern taxonomy, binomial nomenclature remains crucial for species classification in our increasingly complex understanding of biodiversity. The method, established by Linnaeus, provides a standardized naming convention that circumvents language barriers and facilitates scientific communication globally. However, the field of taxonomy faces considerable challenges, including a deficit of funding and taxonomists, which hampers effective species identification and classification ((Torre E et al.)). Recent advancements, particularly in molecular phylogenetics, have reshaped classifications, revealing paraphyletic relationships among traditionally defined groups, such as the legume family, which has undergone significant restructuring based on molecular data ((Clark et al.)). This highlights that binomial nomenclature not only serves as a static framework but also adapts in response to evolving scientific knowledge. As such, its relevance transcends mere classification; it is integral to understanding ecological relationships and conserving biodiversity in a rapidly changing world.

The chart illustrates the trends in taxonomy by displaying the number of taxonomists over the years from 2010 to 2023. The data reveals a gradual decline in the number of taxonomists, from 1500 in 2010 to 1000 in 2023. The chart is clear and well-structured, making it easy to visualize changes in the number of professionals in this field over time.

E. Future of Binomial Nomenclature – Technological Advancements & Integration with Digital Databases

As technological advancements continue to reshape various domains of knowledge, the future of binomial nomenclature stands to benefit immensely from these innovations, particularly through the integration with digital databases. The proliferation of sophisticated software tools and platforms facilitates the centralization and accessibility of naming conventions for species. Such integration enables real-time updates of taxonomic information, reducing ambiguity and fostering greater accuracy in classification. Moreover, the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning can expedite the process of identifying and naming new species by analyzing large datasets, thus ensuring adherence to the established rules of nomenclature. As researchers and ecologists increasingly collaborate across platforms, the standardization provided by digital databases can promote a universal framework that transcends geographical and linguistic barriers. Ultimately, these technological advancements create a dynamic ecosystem for binomial nomenclature, reinforcing its foundational role in biological classification while enhancing its relevance in a rapidly evolving scientific landscape.

The chart illustrates the levels of AI and machine learning integration from the year 2020 to the anticipated future of 2025 and beyond. Each bar represents a year, with the heights reflecting the integration levels categorized as Low, Medium, High, Very High, and Extreme. Annotations provide insights into the impact of technological advancements on nomenclature for each year, highlighting the improvements in accuracy and efficiency brought about by these developments.

References:

• Rogers, Christopher M.. “Taxonomy and the History of Science: A Critical Analysis of Four Historic Publications”. DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University, 2019, https://core.ac.uk/download/322808630.pdf
• Franz, Nico M., Sterner, Beckett. “Taxonomy for Humans or Computers? Cognitive Pragmatics for Big Data”. 2017, https://core.ac.uk/download/185244902.pdf
• Bos, Bos, Bos, Brian W.J. Mahy, Calisher, Drebot, Fauquet, et al.. “Emerging Issues in Virus Taxonomy”. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/8708309.pdf
• Serrat, Olivier. “Taxonomies for Development”. DigitalCommons@ILR, 2010, https://core.ac.uk/download/5132829.pdf
• Nakano, Michelle, Nakano, Michelle. “Red Seal Landscape Horticulturist Identify Plants and Plant Requirements”. Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 2020, https://core.ac.uk/download/622360907.pdf
• Demissew, Sebsebe, Endresen, Dag, Gelete, Desalegn Chala, Johnsen, et al.. “Address Social Injustices in Taxonomy: Implement Extended Revisions of Names with Ethical Issues and Persistent Identifiers for Tracing Name Changes”. MDPI, 2024, https://core.ac.uk/download/620471097.pdf
• Arnold, Greg, Bridgman, Lucy Jade, Cox, Neil R., Fitzgerald, et al.. “Effect of grazing on ship rat density in forest fragments of lowland Waikato, New Zealand”. ‘New Zealand Ecological Society’, 2010, https://core.ac.uk/download/29197604.pdf
• Simmonds, Peter. “A critique of the use of species and below-species taxonomic terms for viruses—time for change?”. Oxford University Press, 2024, https://core.ac.uk/download/630269319.pdf
• Porter, Dahlia. “Specimen poetics: botany, reanimation, and the Romantic collection”. ‘University of California Press’, 2017, https://core.ac.uk/download/74232990.pdf
• Espinosa Torre, Free, García Gómez, José Carlos, Guerra García, José Manuel. “Tendencias actuales en Taxonomía: una visión sobre los principales temas de Taxonomía”. ‘Editorial de la Universidad de Granada’, 2008, https://core.ac.uk/download/51391389.pdf
• Kelley, Tanya. “World to Word: Nomenclature Systems of Color and Species”. 2017, https://core.ac.uk/download/199235373.pdf
• Oliveira, M. (Magno), Portella, A. C. (Augustus), Previeiro, C. A. (Conceição), Silva, et al.. “ARANEOMORPHAE: Development of an application for the identification of the taxonomic key of arachnid families in Brazil”. ‘Arunai Publications Private Limited’, 2018, https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/264287-araneomorphae-development-of-an-applicat-be327e38.pdf
• Romanowski, Víctor. “Possibility and challenges of conversion of current virus species names to Linnaean binomials”. 2017, https://core.ac.uk/download/301100299.pdf
• Kelley, Tanya. “”Goethe’s Plant Morphology: The Seeds of Evolution””. 2007, https://core.ac.uk/download/186329858.pdf
• Wesseler, Sophie. “What\u27s In a Name? Plant Naming as Cultural Artifact and Story in the Midwestern United States”. ScholarWorks@Bellarmine, 2024, https://core.ac.uk/download/617896762.pdf
• Clark, Ruth P.. “Resolution of paraphyly in caesalpinioid legumes”. Oxford Brookes University, 2017, https://core.ac.uk/download/341769494.pdf

Image References:

• “Linnaean Classification of Animals from ‘Regnum Animale’.” i0.wp.com, 11 January 2025, https://i0.wp.com/landscapesandletters.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Linnaeus_-_Regnum_Animale_1735.png?fit=1600%2C1009&ssl=1