Flora Unveiled

The Linnaean Era j 369

369 369

subdivided into twenty classes based on the structures, positions, and number, union, and

length of their stamens: Monandria, Diandria, Triandria, and the like. Each of the classes

(except the Cryptogams, or nonseed plants with “hidden” sex structures), were then fur-

ther subdivided into orders based mainly on the number of pistils:  Monogynia, Digynia,

Trigynia, and so on.

As has been noted by several scholars, Linnaeus’s choice of stamens for the assignment

of Class and pistils for the assignment of the subordinate category of Order had no scien-

tific basis and probably reflected patriarchal attitudes of eighteenth- century society.^54 The

inferior status of women had, after all, been laid out in Genesis, which served to justify the

advantaged economic and legal positions enjoyed by men. Indeed, if Linnaeus had ranked

pistils above stamens in his taxonomic hierarchy it would have been tantamount to claim-

ing that Adam was created from Eve’s rib, with all the social implications that implied.

Even if he had wanted to, which is unlikely, Linnaeus was far too ambitious to raise any

red flags by flying in the face of such a fundamental social prejudice, thus jeopardizing the

acceptance of his sexual system.

However, it is important not to overinterpret the significance of the stamen– pistil hier-

archy as a reflection of Linnaeus’s patriarchal attitudes. As later immortalized in verse by

Erasmus Darwin, many flowers in the Linnaean system consist of single wives with mul-

tiple husbands, a polyandrous domestic arrangement not likely to be endorsed by the beer-

swilling denizens of the local pub. Moreover, Linnaeus ultimately came to question the

fixity of species and proposed that the vast majority of plant species were created by inter-

generic crosses occurring after the Fall. As we shall see in the next section, in the case of

hybrids between different genera, Linnaeus always assigned the progeny of such a cross to

the genus of the female parent. In principle, therefore, the vast majority of plant species

should be grouped according to their maternal genera, the botanical equivalent of matri-

lineal descent. Linnaeus’s views on gender as applied to plant taxonomy were thus more

complex than are sometimes implied.

Linnaeus’s user- friendly sexual system was greeted with rapturous applause, especially

from women, and especially in England, where botanizing had attained the status of a

national pastime. In the words of Londa Schiebinger,

Well- born ladies, including the Duchess of Beaufort, Lady Margaret of Portland, and

Mrs. Eleanor Glanville, led the way, collecting rare and exotic plants from around the

world. The royal family (George III, Queen Charlotte, and his mother, Augusta— all

botanical enthusiasts) further enhanced the popularity of botany by serving as influ-

ential patrons and enlarging the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, in London.

It was in this new atmosphere of interest in botany, especially among the ladies of

the upper classes, that Linnaeus’s sexual system gained wide acclaim.^55

In the absence of any English translations of Systema Naturae, English botanists intro-

duced his principles into their texts. According to Ann Shteir,

In England, various pioneering books introduced readers to Linnaeus’s ideas about

classifying and naming plants. Some were expositions of the Linnaean system, others