Linnaeus: the founder of databases 17 Jun 200918 Sep 2017 A couple of years ago I was in Exeter, and was chatting to Staffan Müller-Wille, who is an expert in the history of biology specialising in Linnaean taxonomy. He mentioned to me that Linnaeus had invented the index card in order to keep track of the increasingly large data set of species names he was receiving from his correspondents. He has now made a public presentation of this. Apparently, Linnaeus initially numbered his manuscripts absolutely, which meant that each new edition had to have a new numbering system. Eventually he introduced index cards so he could, as it were, sort the data dynamically. This meant that he needed a unique record identifier, which it transpired, he already had: the binomial that all species have, of their genus and species epithet. Linnaeus had to manage a conflict between the need to bring information into a fixed order for purposes of later retrieval, and the need to permanently integrate new information into that order, says Mueller-Wille. “His solution to this dilemma was to keep information on particular subjects on separate sheets, which could be complemented and reshuffled,” he says. Towards the end of his career, in the mid-1760s, Linnaeus took this further, inventing a paper tool that has since become very common: index cards. While stored in some fixed, conventional order, often alphabetically, index cards could be retrieved and shuffled around at will to update and compare information at any time. “Although a seemingly mundane and simple innovation, Linnaeus’ use of index cards marks a major shift in how eighteenth-century naturalists thought about the order of nature,” says Mueller-Wille. The natural world was no longer ordered on a fixed, linear scale, but came to be seen as a map-like natural system of multiple affinities. I don’t know the context of that last comment. “Affinity” was a term that roughly played the role now played by homology, and meant the overall agreement of traits between groups. But Linnaeus used, in the scheme named after him, a single key for each division or group. He did attempt a “natural” classification late in life, probably about the time he started this indexing system, so maybe the report is right. I’d love to see the paper. Staffan rarely gets anything wrong (even on Linnaeus’ species “concept”). But think what this means: Linnaeus has a system for recording, retrieving, and indexing data. That’s a database! Linnaeus invented the database. And although he doesn’t use a computer system (Wikipedia is just wrong to so restrict it to computers), he used what we might call data normalisation – each species was listed once, in one group. The tree structure of classification in Linnaean taxonomy roughly answers to a B-tree. He didn’t use the absence of a key as a defining trait. This is not an argument by analogy, either – the development of modern logic, on which databases are founded, was directly influenced by Linnaean taxonomy in the early and mid-19thC. Venn explicitly appeals to biological taxonomy, for example, and Jevons also. Epistemology History Philosophy Science Species and systematics Systematics
History Plato on the origin of the gods 15 Nov 2009 As for the other spiritual beings [daimones], it is beyond our task to know and speak of how they came to be. We should accept on faith the assertions of those figures of the past who claimed to be the offspring of gods. They must surely have been well informed… Read More
Philosophy A night about religion 1 Oct 2010 I’m part of a tag team night for the Student Philosophy Association at the University of Queensland. The Facebook page is here. I’m arguing for… guess which? Read More
Cognition Aware: Upload 9 Nov 202330 May 2024 But, not bit… Why we will never be saved in computers One of the more common posthumanist themes is that we can download ourselves into a computer matrix of some kind (and indeed that we may even be in a matrix) and live forever (or until the matrix dies). As a thought… Read More
I could be totally wrong on this and I don’t really want to deprive the biologists of the honour of having invented systematic “stamp collecting” but I strongly suspect that observational astronomers such as Ptolemaeus, Tycho, Doppelmayr, Flamsteed and Herschel all must have used some form of database in their work. Wikipedia is of course wrong to suggest that databases are a product of the computer age, Hollerith’s punch card sorting machines were invented to manage databases including those used by the Nazis in the Holocaust to control the Jews.
It’s a matter of how they stored the data. Typically, astronomers drew up tables of observations. They didn’t have independent records for each observation that they could sort, for example, by time or by declination as it suited them. Linnaeus had that sort of a system, and the right sort of a retrieval hierarchy. A database is a structured table, where a simple flat table is only at best a partial database. Also note that Linnaeus has structured fields: the fructification apparatus in the case of flowering plants, various identification keys, the “essential characters” (the ten word definition), and so on, along with locale, name of discoverer, and so forth. It’s all there.
Vladimir Propp, the Russian Formalist looked with envy on Linnaeus’s system. His work was revolutionary in Folkloristics and morphology. Ptolemaeus, Tycho et al may have been first with a database and archive but it’s Linnaeu’s who sparks the stamp collecting craze in my part of the pond.