75 Jiri Pika Knowledge Organization in Sciences – As a Classificatory Performance and Classification Design Model for Humanities Abstract The paper provides an overview of natural science classification scheme development with major control of classification criteria presented in the Linnaean taxonomy. Based on natural laws, the Linnaean taxonomy has been accepted worldwide. Unlike the indexing of the natural sciences items that follows the logic and systematics of natural laws – a real challenge still exists in classification of documents originating from human intellectual activity.Items, produced as a human output are a particular phenomenon and as such, follow no common rules. This lack of evident natural law as a basis for a common classification can be substituted by practices of facet classifications and Information Coding Classification (ICC) [1] that advances to the field of classifying literature. Their common feature is to analyse the information content with a set of categorical questions and to express the answers in exact terms, concepts and notations. The ensuing categorizations are certainly both concise and unequivocal: essentially Linnaean, or better! Introduction Among the numerous examples of knowledge organization in sciences, one case is particularly interesting, mainly from the documentary point of view (Umstätter 2009). Ever since the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeuswasknighted to become Carl von Linné, in recognition of his classificatory work in 1761, we have learned that the natural arrangement of objects of intellectual and physical environment leads to knowledge. Linnaeus thus made a significant contribution to the development of documentary sciences, without being adequately appreciated in this area. How revolutionary his idea was, can be seen by the fact that his work “Systema Naturae” (1735) was listed on the “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” by the pope (Jahn 2000). His influence in the 18th century was so great that J.W.v. Goethe on 7. November 1816 wrote to his friend Carl Friedrich Zelter [2]: This day I have reread Linnaeus and I am shocked by this extraordinary man. I have learned so much from him, but not Botany. With the exception of Shakespeare and Spinoza, I know no one among the no longer living who has influenced me more strongly. Even his opponent, the director of the royal gardens in Paris, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon had to accept the systematics of Linnaeus on royal behest in 1774. The systematic arrangement of living creatures by Linnaeus came as a result of the increasing travel activities of naturalists and their plant and animal descriptions. To name a few: Andrea Cesalpino described in his book “De Plantis” (1583) more than 1500 plants and Gaspard Bauhin in his “Pinax Theatri Botanici” (1623) described 6000 plant species. Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (Eléments de botanique ou method pour connaître les plantes) characterized nearly 7000 in 1694 and John Ray described over 18 000 by 1704 in “Historia plantarum” (1686-1704). To organize this vast amount of information, trying to cope with various classifications was at that time extremely important, especially for the purpose of 76 medicine and agriculture (Hansen, 1902). In particular, the use of different names for the same plant has led to dangerous misunderstandings. The rules, which Linné gives in his Philosophia Botanica for choosing the name, are masterful. He points out the absurdity of most of the old names and calls the botanists to choose their Nomina vera with the words: idiotae imposuere nomina absurda. Linnaeus in his “Philosophia Botanica” (1751) characterized other botanists as “Fructistae“, “Corollistae“, “Calycistae“ and several other classes of botanists [3] (Hansen 1902), depending on which part of the plant his botanist colleagues (Linnaeus1751, Rádl 1905) used to design their classifications. Whereas other botanists are classed as Fructistae, Corollistae, Calycistae, under the Sexualists [4] stands a solitary, proud “ego”, which is correct, since he is the sole inventor of the “sexual system”, but it bears a strong aftertaste of the most sovereign self-confidence (Hansen 1902). Linnaeus regarded himself [5] as “Sexualist” because he based his system on the classification of plant sex organs. Linnaeus made it clear that sexuality is a ubiquitous phenomenon of nature. This, at that time truly brilliant discovery, can be found in his thesis (1730) – an account of plant sexual reproduction: [6] “Praeludia Sponsaliorum Plantarum“ (=On the prelude to the wedding of plants). He relied on knowledge of Rudolph J. Camerarius (1665-1721), professor of medicine and director of the botanical garden in Tübingen, who had demonstrated by his publication (De sexu plantarum epistola 1694) that plants have sexuality. Nevertheless it was Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712), who had actually discovered this fact, but wasn’t able to prove it. Linnaeus considered this phenomenon highly anthropomorphic. When he repeatedly talks about the bridal bed, or in connection with the "Polyandria", he asserts that in a flower with 20 stamens and one stylus, there are '20 males or more in the same bed with the female', a state of affairs enjoyed by the poppy (Papaver) and the linden (Tilia). He opens his dissertation: “In spring, when the bright sun…The actual petals of a flower contribute nothing to generation, serving only as the bridal bed which the great Creator has so gloriously prepared, adorned with such precious bed-curtains, and perfumed with so many sweet scents, in order that the bride-groom and bride may therein celebrate their nuptials with the greater solemnity”) [7] Blunt (1971). The introduction of sexuality as classification criterion led to the theory of evolution expressed later by Darwin, and found its basic fundament exactly in this classification. So it is understandable that the "Systema Naturae" was banned by the Pope and placed on papal Indexes of Prohibited Books (The Index Librorum Prohibitorum).Linnaeus pointed out that science is established primarily by its classification system, which arranges the knowledge relations within the specific system. Today we would say: integrated into semiotic networks (Umstätter 2009). Although Linnaeus initially regarded his system as artificial - today it could be called constructivistic - it soon became evident that it was a natural one. His system depicted the natural evolution of living nature, because it applied the sexual kinship of 77 species as a classificatory criterion. Thus he transformed his system from a pure constructivism into an evolution model (Umstätter 2009). Linnaeus did not suppose that his classification of the plant kingdom in the book was natural, reflecting the logic of God’s creation. His sexual system, where species with the same number of stamens were treated in the same group, was convenient, but in his view artificial. Linnaeus believed in God’s creation, and that there were no deeper relationships to be expressed. He is frequently quoted to have said: "Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit” (“God created, Linnaeus organized”) [8] Linnaean taxonomy In 1727 Linnaeus became aware of a newspaper article, which reported on a public lecture by Sébastien Vaillant, the member of the Academy of Sciences and director of the royal garden in Paris, on the sexuality of plants. In it was the indication that the pollen of the plants have the same function as sperm. The sexualistic system of Linnaeus (Rádl 1905) became accepted despite the resistance of many botanists, because it was clear, consistent and provocative (Umstätter 2009). Thus, it could not have been ignored by the world of experts (Mayr 1982). Since then the newly discovered creatures could be classified and recognized again by a standardized procedure. Another important achievement of Linnaeus is the establishment of still-in-use standardized botanical nomenclature [9] (Paterlini 2007). In the "Genera Plantarum" (1737) he has determined the rules according to which the genera of plants should be named The name of a plant should be two-fold: a genus name equals to the human family name and a name of a species, as the name in daily life (nomina trivialia). The diagnosis depends on the associations in kinship circle of the respective species…. (Jahn 1985). Equally important were the terminology introduced by Linnaeus and his instructions about how to describe the plant species. He introduced and defined about 1000 botanical terms in "Fundamenta Botanica" by 1736. Crucial for the classification was the clear distinction of significant and insignificant characteristics. As insignificant Linnaeus recognized characteristics, such as color, odor and size, because it was obvious to him that these could vary easily even within one species. In contrast, the sexual system was largely a type- or species-consistent categorization. During his life Linnaeus realized ever more clearly that the species that he initially thought to be immutable can hybridize. Moreover, he observed some adaptation of plants to their environment and towards the end of his life he considered the origin of new species by hybridization to be quite feasible (Mallet 2007). Cladistics, Knowledge Organization and Phylogenetic Classification The question of what can be used in a classification as a division-criterion for categorization has proved crucial in Linnaeus’ work. The key idea in the cladistics is to let the classes branch according to their relationship. Whereas the development of 78 many library classifications for routine indexing