Talk:Institutiones rei herbariae

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Institutiones rei herbariae appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Institutiones rei herbariae, published in 1700, sought to give a unique name to every plant based on their "essence"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Institutiones rei herbariae.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a 1700 book sought to give a unique name to every plant based on their "essence"? Source: Callot, Émile (1965). "Système et méthode dans l'histoire de la botanique" (PDF). Revue d'histoire des sciences et de leurs applications (in French). 18 (1): page 50.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Weise's law

Created by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Institutiones rei herbariae; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

The article is new enough and long enough, and QPQ has been made. It is in line with policy as far as I can tell and lacks an image. The hook is OK and supported by inline citations, though I would favour a re-phrasing of "a 1700 book" (perhaps "a book published in 1700" or some such?). However, there are a few things that confuse me in the article. If the original work was in French, why is the article about the Latin translation? There is also a reference to illustrations in "the volume". Does this refer to the first Latin edition? I imagine different editions could have been illustrated or not. You also write that the book is important for "its role as a foundational document for later botanists", but this is not really very stringently developed in the article. It would be great if it could be. As it is, I think the article is OK for appearance on the main page, but I really would like to encourage you to develop it further. It seems like a fascinating subject! Before giving the tick for the DYK review I would however like some more clarity about why the article is about the Latin and not the French edition. Thanks, Yakikaki (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yakikaki: I'm away from my computer for the week, so I can't make major changes for a little while unfortunately. I can answer about why the central topic is the Latin edition vice the French one. Since Latin is the language used for botanical studies, that version was the one that was actually widely studied. It was more expansive, and was the one that all successive authors would have referenced. That is why it is the central topic of the article, despite being the second edition. Fritzmann (message me) 06:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did a cursory search myself in different encyclopaedias. The Oxford Companion to the Garden has it as "His growing reputation led him to develop a new system of plant classification which he published under the title Eléments de botanique (1693). It was such a success that in 1700 there was a Latin edition entitled Institutiones Rei Herbariae." The 15th edition of Britannica equally first mentions the French edition, then the Latin. Oxford Dictionary of Plant Science agrees with your assessment and writes "A French botanist who became a professor at the Jardin du Roi in Paris and is remembered for producing a system of plant classification and nomenclature in the 1690s. His Institutiones Rei Herbariae (1700) helped to bridge the gap between the work of Bauhin and Linnaeus." I would ideally want a source that clearly says what you write above, i.e. that the Latin edition is the edition of reference. Do you think that is feasible? Otherwise I guess it could be accepted in good faith or something along those lines, but please look through these things when you have time, and see if you can clarify this and the other points a bit. That would be very appreciated. Yakikaki (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1: That the 1700 book Institutiones rei herbariae sought to give a unique name to every plant based on their "essence"?

@Yakikaki: how is this updated hook? While I do have plans to further expand the article in the future, I don't think it requires any major updates to comply with the DYK criteria. Are there any parts of the DYK criteria that have not been addressed and are required before approval? Fritzmann (message me) 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable. I prefer ALT1 but the original is also functional. Yakikaki (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]