Ben Creisler
===
I am planning a series of posts about the "lost lore" of early Neo-Latin names that are now widely misread or misunderstood, potentially distorting the history of zoology and paleontology.
Any errors are my own (despite my best efforts). The translations are also my own unless otherwise indicated, some done with the help of online dictionaries and tools such as Google Translate. Wherever possible, I have tried to provide online links to freely available material.
Some of the terms used in this post (because of the subject matter) may run afoul of the filters on the Dinosaur Mailing List and block the text. I may need to reedit or find another way to post the content on the DML, if possible.
Â
======
New Decade Resolutions
January 2020 is an opportunity to propose not only New Year's resolutions but "New Decade's resolutions"...
My first suggestion for a "New Decade" resolution:
Use the correct meaning for the name Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758!Â
(And for English mammals as well!)
***
NOTE: For a general summary of the long history of terms for mammals, see William King Gregory 1910:
Gregory, William K. (1910) The orders of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 27. Part I. Typical Stages in the History of Mammals. pgs. 104.
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/313
======
Â
Misunderstanding 'Mammalia'
Overall, I liked the recent general audience book "I, Mammal," but was bothered by a number of items. Maybe most glaringly, the author claimed that Carl Linnaeus did not explain the reason for his 1758 name Mammalia--in fact, he did!
Drew, Liam (2017) I, Mammal: The Story of What Makes Us Mammals. Sigma 336 pp.
"For his new group, the Swede derived a name from another of its members' defining characters. He gave no reason for this, included no justificatory note: 'Mammalia,' he simply stated, 'these and no other animals have mammae.' ....
And, for that matter, that this name is derived from a structure possessed by only half of mammals and that is functional - if ever - for only a fraction of its possessor's life?...
That Carl Linnaeus never offered an explanation for his choice has always left this open to speculation, especially given that lofty scientific principles didn't always guide Linnaeus's naming practices."
***
Contrary to these assertions, there is NO riddle about the name Mammalia when understood in its original context. Linnaeus's clearly intended (and quite precise) 18th century scientific Neo-Latin meaning for Mammalia was:
"(animals distinguished by) having teats" or "(animals) having teats" for short ...
and NOT the misleading, human-focused Latin meaning "belonging to the breast" or "of the breast" now widely given, and evidently assumed by Drew and others...
***
The history behind the name Mammalia is a good opportunity to review the historical importance of Neo-Latin in zoological nomenclature as an adaptable tool to express scientific ideas. It is also critical to emphasize the distinct status of Neo-Latin alongside classical Greek and older forms of Latin.
Unfortunately, many of the shared conventions about meanings and grammar in scientific Neo-Latin names that developed in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries were later forgotten or misunderstood, especially by the late 20th century.
Since my background is in linguistics, this "lost lore" of older Neo-Latin names in zoology, and in particular in vertebrate paleontology, has been a long-term personal research project--greatly aided in recent years by the vast amount of primary source material that is now freely available through the internet thanks to Google Books, the Biodiversity Heritage Library, Hathi Trust, Gallica, university and museum online digital libraries, etc.
This post is partly a response to a discussion on the Dinosaur Mailing List where the idea of Neo-Latin was recently dismissed. It is also a follow-up to a pre-Christmas post about online resources for nomenclature and taxonomy--and the lack of a comprehensive source for older scientific Neo-Latin usage.
I'm planning some additional posts on the topic of now misunderstood Neo-Latin names and usage for the new decade.
=======
=======
Systema Naturae 10th Edition
The Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) is famous as the standardizer (but not the inventor) of the binomial (genus/species) system of nomenclature--first in his main field botany (in 1753 (Species Plantarum)) and then in zoology (in 1758 (Systema Naturae 10th edition)). His 10th edition of the Systema Naturae for zoology also established the higher category names Mammalia and Primates.
(Although a binomial combination of genus and species is still used, Linnaeus's hierarchical ranking system of classification based on shared features into classes and orders (a family level was added by later researchers and often corresponds to what Linnaeus treated as a genus (Canis, etc.)) has run afoul of modern understandings of evolution, now expressed with divisions into clades based on phylogenetic history, an approach at the heart of the new Phylo Code to be implemented in 2020.)
Below is a link to a near exact 19th century reproduction of the 10th edition in Latin that keeps the page numbers but with clearer text than scanned copies of the original 1758 edition (although the retained 18th century font with a non-final "s" that looks like an "f" can take a little effort to decipher for modern eyes).
Linnaeus, Carl (1758)
Systema Naturae. X edition.
https://hymfiles.asc.ohio-state.edu/pdfs-osuc/978/978.pdf
Translation Issues...
The Linnaeus's original Latin descriptions of taxa in the 1758 Systema Naturae are typically telegraphic and bare-bones, mostly consisting of a few words to indicate possession of traits, features, or other characteristics, most often with forms of the verb sum "be" (est "is" or sunt "are") understood but not included (rather than fully stated with a form of habeo "have" (habet "has" or habent "have") and the accusative case). Commonly, the dative ("to") or the ablative ("with") case is used to show possession of a feature or of a property [confusingly, Latin spells the plural dative and the plural ablative the same way], along the lines of "to birds [are] wings" or "birds [are] with wings." In other cases, an adjective is used or is formed by adding the Latin suffix -atus "having" similar to -ed in English as in "birds [are] winged," etc. Translating the minimized Latin text into coherent complete sentences in a modern language with Linnaeus's intended meanings can be a challenge and commonly means replacing the unwritten "be" with forms of "have" in English.
Â
The most thorough, near-contemporary translation in English that I am aware of is by Robert Kerr (1757-1813), published in 1792, based on German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin's (1748â1804), 1788 revision (13th edition) in Latin of the Systema Naturae after Linnaeus's death, plus more updates and additions. Kerr still retains some of the basic text content of the 10th edition (as modified and expanded by Linnaeus himself in his later Systema editions), but translated into full English sentences. The first volume covers mammals and birds (continued in Vol. 2).
Kerr, Robert (1792)
The animal kingdom, or zoological system, of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus. containing a complete systematic description, arrangement, and nomenclature, of all the known species and varieties of the mammalia, or animals which give suck to their young: Class I, Mammalia. (Class II, Birds.) Vol. 1.
A. Strahan, and T. Cadell, London, and W. Creech, Edinburgh 644 pp.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.57940
Free pdf:
https://ia801609.us.archive.org/1/items/animalkingdomorz00linn/animalkingdomorz00linn.pdf
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/57940#/summary
[Note that there were earlier expanded full-text translations of Linnaeus into Dutch, German, and French, as discussed later.]
=====
Classical Latin vs. Neo-Latin
The term "Neo-Latin" (or "New Latin") is used for the form of Latin that emerged during the Renaissance as a common communication tool for newly developing scientific and medical research among European cultures with different native tongues, promoted especially by the development of the printing press and the emergence of scholarly journals and books.
"Neo-Latin in the 18th century was not a dead and dusty language, but a living, flexible tool for scientific communication, as the studies of Latinists such as Hans Helander and Krister Ãstlund have shown. Linnaeus' Latin has been analysed in an article by Ann-Mari JÃnsson, who works on the Linnaean Correspondence. The Latin in his letters is not always grammatically correct, especially when he writes in a hurry. Yet his use of Latin is bold and creative â just think of the whole botanical nomenclature that he created!" [not to mention zoological nomenclature...] (pg. 24)
Skuncke, Marie-Christine. Linnaeus: An 18th Century Background. In
Mary J. Morris and Leonie Berwick (eds.), The Linnaean Legacy. The Linnean
Special Issue 8: 19-26.
https://ca1-tls.edcdn.com/documents/Special-Issue-8-The-Linneaen-Legacy.pdf?mtime=20160213060737
(The focus is mainly on Linnaeus's work in botany rather than in zoology.)
While Linnaeus' personal correspondence in Latin may have had occasional grammar flubs, the multiple editions of his System Naturae in Latin went through scrutiny by many eyes and reflect accepted Neo-Latin usage--and are NOT riddled with obvious errors.
I have to take issue with Stephen J. Gould's comments in his essay "The Hottentot Venus":. Gould 1985, Flamingo's Smile, about the Latin of Linnaeus and his contemporaries:
"But eighteenth-century scientific Latin was written so indifferently that misspellings and wrong case are no bar to actual intent..."
Hottentot Venus (free pdf)
http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Theory%20Scans/Gould.pdf
The problem is much more the modern misreadings or misunderstandings, or the out-and-out misquoting, of older Neo-Latin texts, including those written by Linnaeus, as discussed below.
Scientific Neo-Latin should be taken on its own terms as it was developed by scholarly usage and not as "bad" Latin. It differs from "classical" Greek and Latin in some notable ways (a topic for future posts). For now, I'll focus on a common source of issues.
===
Neo-Latin and the Multiple Meanings Muddle
As in any language, many words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, prepositions) could have multiple meanings in classical and in later forms of Greek and Latin, including additional meanings when such words were combined in compounds or modified by word elements such as prefixes, suffixes, and grammatical inflections.
***
Example: In Ancient Greek, the feminine noun ops by itself could mean "eye," "face," or "appearance"--distinct meanings that could also apply in a compound word ending with -ops (the compound word itself could be masculine or feminine). In addition, a final -ops sometimes could mean "resembling or like" in compounds.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dw)%2Fy
Â
-ops with long o (omega)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?lookup=wy&page=2&lang=greek&type=end
Â
-ops with short o (omicron)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=end&lookup=oy&lang=greek
Â
[The lists above also include other words that end in -ops (thops, skops, etc.) not from the noun ops.]
All of these meanings for -ops have been used in Neo-Latin names. [Note that for simplicity's sake, under ICZN rules, all generic names that end in -ops no matter the etymology or source are treated as masculine in gender.]
***
Neo-Latin usage also invented new meanings for Greek and Latin words and word elements, as well as creating new words and new names in Latin form. Some researchers, such as Edward Drinker Cope, were particularly inventive in adapting Greek or Latin words to new meanings, but also in using unusual Neo-Latin spellings (making some names hard to decipher).
Â
Taken together, the range of possible meanings for Neo-Latin names when they are translated into English and other modern languages is not always captured in lexicon and dictionary entries based on classical usage. Simply going to classical Greek or Latin lexicons or grammar books to decipher the meaning of a Neo-Latin name can be misleading and inaccurate without putting the name into its historical context based on primary source material.Â
Case in
point, the name Mammalia...
============
============
Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758
Linnaeus's Neo-Latin name Mammalia is composed of two parts with multiple meanings--the Latin noun mamma and the Latin plural suffix -alia (from -alis). Deciphering exactly what Linnaeus had in mind with the combination requires a review of 18th century Neo-Latin conventions.
===
Latin mamma (plural mammae) "breast, teat"
Of obvious importance in understanding the name Mammalia is what Linnaeus and other early naturalists meant and understood by the Latin word mamma. Modern English has distinct words for the human female breast and for a teat (the term now used primarily for animals or as a technical anatomical term). However, in Latin the same word mamma could be used to refer to a breast on a female human or to a teat on an animal.
Francis Gardner (1850) A Dictionary of the Latin Language: Particularly Adapted to the Classics Usually Studied Preparatory to a Collegiate Course. Wilkins, Carter & Company, Boston pp. 318
"Mamma...The breast, i.e., the fleshy protuberance on both sides of the breast : 1. Especially of women ; Plaut. -- 2. Of men; Cic. -- 3. Of animals, A teat, dug : Cic. and Piro. --" (pg. 228)
https://books.google.com/books?id=WVnRUnx7bawC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=teat%2C%20dug&f=false
**
mamma (plural mammae) "breast, teat"
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/mamma
Latin also had additional terms:
mamilla (plural mamillae) "nipple"
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/mamilla
uber (plural ubera) "teat, utter"
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/uber
papilla (plural papillae) "nipple, teat, dug"
https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/noun/13209/
mamma, uber, papilla 132
This translation from German offers the possible different meaning of the words that were used in Latin and in Greek:
MAMMA; MAMILLA; UBER; PAPILLA. (pg. 132)
Ludwig von Doederlein, Henry Hamilton Arnold (1841) Hand-book of Latin synonymes: translated from the German, by the Rev. H. H. Arnold. J. G. F. & J. Rivington, London
In later derivations of Latin words in Romance languages and in Neo-Latin usage, the stricter meanings were expanded a bit.
Â
**********
**********
Linnaeus used the Latin word mamma/plural mammae to refer to three things in the 10th edition Systema Naturae:
"teats" as an external anatomical feature distinctive to mammals as animals in general, found in both females and males (pg. 16)
In the general anatomical features of Homo:
"Mammae duae, pectorales, distantes, gibbae, rotundatae" (pg. 23)
Teats: two, pectoral, far apart, protuberant, rounded
Kerr translation (with added details):
"On the breast are two distant, round, protuberant mammae, or dugs, each having a cylindrical obtuse wrinkly projecting nipple, which is surrounded by a darker coloured circle called the areola."
**
"mammary glands" in female animals that produce milk to nurse young (as 'mammae lactantes' "milk-producing teats")
**
"breasts" as an organ special to human females, as in 'mammae lactantes prolixae' (pg. 22), translated "long lax breasts" in Kerr (1792) (pg. ), a supposed general anatomical feature of the "Afer" variety of Homo sapiens according to Linnaeus.
[For a history of European misconceptions about African and other
non-European females, see:
https://comparativeslavery.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/2953316.pdf ]
Â
======
The Latin Suffix -alia in Mammalia: "having"
The second part of the name Mammalia is the Latin suffix -alis in neuter plural form -alia. The adjectival suffix -alis (also as -aris) was widely used in classical Latin and was adopted into Neo-Latin usage with additional meanings. It was added to nouns to create adjectives (which also could be used like nouns in some cases).
Note that classical Latin had a peculiar phonetic rule--if the noun before the suffix -alis had a letter "L," the suffix changed to -aris with an "R": lunaris [luna "moon"], solaris [sol "sun"], ocellaris [ocella "spot" ('little eye')], familiaris [familia "family"], etc.
An explanation of the basic meaning "pertaining to" (and the alternate spelling -aris after the letter "L") as it is found in English:
The Latin suffix -ALIS (> E -al) / -ARIS (> E -ar or -ary)
Â
The various possible Latin spellings of the suffix -alis in the nominative case (common in zoological nomenclature) following the third declension are:
Singular: masculine and feminine: -alis (-aris); neuter: -ale (-are)
Plural: masculine and feminine: -ales (-ares); neuter: -alia (-aria)
**
Compare the Latin suffix -atus "having" (using the first and second declensions):
Singular: masculine: -atus; feminine: -ata; neuter -atum
Plural: masculine: -ati; feminine: -atae; neuter: -ata
======
3 meanings of -alis (-aris) in Neo-Latin:
1. "belonging to, pertaining to, of; made of"
This represents the main meaning in classical Latin and the only one typically given in modern reference works on Latin grammar or word formation.
frontalis "of the forehead, brow" (Latin frons, frontis "brow, forehead")
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/frontalis
Neo-Latin anatomical and medical terminology: frontalis muscle, nervus frontalis, etc.
**
In zoological nomenclature, -alis (-aris) as "belonging to" or "of" often can be found in species names to refer to geographical or environmental associations: polaris, borealis, australis, occidentalis, etc.
2. "resembling, like"
regalis "kinglike, kingly, regal" (Latin rex, regis "king" ) (regalis could also mean "belonging to or of a king")
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/regalis
In zoological nomenclature, often in the sense of "king-size" for a physically large species (similar to the Latin noun rex "king" in apposition):
Edmontosaurus regalis Lambe, 1917
L. M. Lambe (1917) A new genus and species of crestless hadrosaur from the Edmonton Formation of Alberta.ÂThe Ottawa NaturalistÂ31(7): 65-73 [for a "hadrosaur of large size"]
https://books.google.com/books?id=eYvVAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA65&lpg=RA2-PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false
***
Megalamynodon regalis Wood ex Scott, 1945
(In this case, the specific name regalis was meant to refer both to large size and also to J. LeRoy Kay, leader of the expedition that found the fossil (LeRoy "the king").)
William B. Scott (1945) The Mammalia of the Duchesne River Oligocene. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 34(3): 209-253
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1005542
Â
3: "having, [with]" (often
similar to the Latin suffix -atus "having" and to the adjectival suffix -ed in English, added to nouns to form
adjectives that express having a feature (winged, webbed, long-necked, etc.) or
a quality (short-tempered, spirited, etc.))
This "having" meaning for -alis is now largely overlooked (although dictionaries sometimes give the meaning "having a placenta" for the English word "placental").
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/placental
animal: In classical Latin, the singular neuter noun animal was derived from the neuter adjective animale, from Latin anima "air, breath, spirit, breath of life" + -alis, with the noun animal understood to mean "having anima [breath of life]" to indicate a living being.
Adjectives with -alis (-aris) could also include the idea of "having":
lanaris "woolbearing, woolly" (Latin lana, lanae "wool")
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/lanaris
The meaning "having" for -alis (-aris) became more common in later forms of Latin:
rotalis "having wheels, wheeled" (Latin rota, rotae "wheel")
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/rotalis
dentalis "having teeth, toothed" (Latin dens, dentis "tooth")
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/dentalis
This later usage of the suffix -alis (-aris) as "having" was adopted into early zoological nomenclature.
In Neo-Latin, the suffix -alis sometimes could have a meaning similar to the Latin suffix -atus "having," as noted. Linnaeus 1758 has species names using both endings (-atus and -alis) with a similar meaning such as:
Ostracion bicaudalis (now Lactophrys bicaudalis (Linnaeus, 1758)) "double-tailed" (Latin cauda "tail")
Phryganea bicaudata (now Diura bicaudata (Linnaeus, 1758)) "double-tailed"
**
Blennius ocellaris "spotted" (From ocella "spot")
Tetraodon ocellatus (now Takifugu ocellatus (Linnaeus, 1758))
**
Lacerta bullaris (now Anolis bullaris (Linnaeus, 1758)) "having a bulla [bubble]" for its display throat pouch
**
Didelphis marsupialis "having a pouch" [marsupium]
Â
But note:
Coluber [now Dolichophis] jugularis "having a (distinctive color) throat" (jugulum or jugulus "throat") for a red patch on the throat (actually only characteristic of a Cyprus subspecies it seems).
====
The Special Meaning for - alis (-aris): "having a distinctive or a notable feature"
Very often in older zoology the suffix -alis (-aris) had the special sense of "having a notable or a distinctive [feature]" (size, shape, coloration, etc.) or "notable for or distinguished by having [a feature]."
In Zoology:
frontalis: "having a (distinctive) brow or forehead" [shape, coloration, size, etc.]--NOT "belonging to the brow or the forehead" as discussed in meaning 1 for anatomy above!
The term 'frontalis' has been widely used as a specific name for birds in indicate the brow or forehead as a distinguishing or a notable feature, often expressed in the English common name: yellow-browed citril (Crithagra frontalis); white-browed scrubwren (Sericornis frontalis); speckle-fronted weaver (Sporopipes frontalis), etc.
Also for mammals: southern African hedgehog (Atelerix frontalis) (for a white forehead band)
=========
This special meaning for -alis (as neuter -ale) to indicate having a distinctive feature is clear in the famous early description of the opossum from 1698 (cited by Linnaeus), which created the pre-Linnean Latin name Marsupiale Americanum.
Tyson, Edward (1698). Carigueya, Seu Marsupiale Americanum. Or, The Anatomy of an Opossum, Dissected at Gresham-College by Edw. Tyson, M. D. Fellow of the College of Physicians, and of the Royal Society, and Reader of Anatomy at the Chyrurgeons-Hall, in London. Philosophical Transactions (January 1, 1698) 20: 236-247 105-164
doi:10.1098/rstl.1698.0023
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1698.0023
Free pdf:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1698.0023
pg. 107:
"I think, a Denomination might be best given to it, from that Particular, wherein 'tis most distinguished from all others; which is that remarkable Pouch or Marsupium it has in the Belly; into which, upon any Occasion of Danger, it can receive its Young....
This Consideration (it being so distinguishing a Character of this Animal from all others, that as yet we know of,) makes me most inclinable to find out some name, that might be most expressive thereof, nor can I think of, at present, a better, than to call it, Marsupiale Americanum...."
In this case, Marsupiale is the neuter singular of marsupialis to mean "having a pouch" and Americanum is the neuter singular of Americanus, with the Latin neuter noun "animal" being understood--that is, Marsupiale Americanum "American (animal) having a pouch"-- but in the clearly implied sense of "American animal most distinguished by having a pouch," as stated in Tyson's text above. (Tyson might have called the animal "Marsupiatum" with -atus simply to show it had a pouch, but did not.)
This Neo-Latin usage of -alis to highlight having an especially distinctive or notable feature is key to understanding what Linnaeus meant by Mammalia.
Â
========
The (Nearly) Forgotten History, Etymology, and Meaning of Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758: "(animals distinguished by) having teats"
The now probably most often misunderstood Neo-Latin zoological name with the suffix -alis as "having" is Mammalia Linnaeus 1758. As noted, the recent book "I, Mammal" misread the intended meaning of Mammalia and claimed Linnaeus did not explain the reason for the name.
To clarify, later Latin had a word mammalis "of the breast" for human medical usage, such as herbs to treat ailments of the breast:
mammalis, e, adj. mamma,
of or for the breasts (post-class.): herba, good for diseases of the breasts, App. Herb. 26.
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/mammalis
As translations and discussions in the 18th and the 19th centuries make clear, however, Linnaeus's Neo-Latin name Mammalia was understood at the time to mean "animals having teats" as a distinctive or a notable feature rather than the human-centered "medical" meaning "belonging to the breast" as currently interpreted.
Owen, Richard (1859) On the Classification and Geographical Distribution of the Mammalia. John W. Parker and Son. London. 103 pp.
"Mammals are distinguished outwardly by an entire or partial covering of hair, and by having teats or mammae--whence the name of the class." (pg. 10)
====
Boucard, Adolphe (1876) A Manual of Natural History. A. Boucard, London pp. 234
"...Mammalia. Their name means 'having teats.'" (pg. 10)
====
Thomas, Joseph (1880) A Comprehensive Medical Dictionary. J.B. Lippincott & Company, Philadelphia pp. 708
"Mammalia or Mammals. [The plural neuter of mammalis, 'having breasts, or teats.' See. Mamma.]" (pg. 314)
https://books.google.com/books?id=e0JHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA314&lpg=PA314dq#=onepage&q&f=false
===
Hunter, Robert (1885) The Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Volume 4, Part 2. Cassell, Petter, Galpin and Company. London, New York pp: 768
mam-ma-li-a s. pl. [Neut. pl. of Latin mammalis = of or for the breasts, good for diseases of the breast; among modern naturalists = having breasts, from mamma = a breast, a teat, a dug of animals.] (pg. 696)
Â
====
In the context of Mammalia Linnaeus 1758, referring broadly to animals, an English translation "teats" is more accurate, although not all early authors in English were rigorous on the point and used "breast" in a general or a figurative sense (that included the meaning teat) such as "breasted animals" or "animals with breasts" to translate the name Mammalia.
From a purely grammatical point of view, Mammalia is formed as an adjective in the neuter plural to match the neuter plural noun Animalia being understood. As was very common in Greek and Latin, adjectives also could be used alone as substantives, that is, equivalent to nouns. In addition, a neuter plural form with a Latin ending -a or -ia is a common way to name groups of things, as in English Americana, memorabilia, Marshiana, trivia, arcana, etc. Such words are neuter plurals in Latin form, not feminine singulars (which also can end in -a and -ia) such as mania, hysteria, dementia, etc.
Note that Gunnar Broberg's notion that "Mammalia" is a supposed contraction [sammandragning in Swedish] of the Latin words "mamma" and "animal" is not correct. pg. 176
'I fÃrbigÃende kan fÃrtydligas att mammalia Ãr en sammandragning av "mamma", brÃst och spene, med "animal"...
[In passing it can be clarified that mammalia is a contraction of "mamma", breast and teat, with "animal"...]
Broberg, Gunnar (1975) Homo sapiens L. : studier i Carl von LinneÌs naturuppfattning och maÌnniskolaÌra /. Borgstroems Boktryckeri AB, 1975 - 319 pages
https://books.google.com/books?id=yWhEAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22sammandragning+av%22
=====
=====
In his extensively revised and expanded 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus created the new class Mammalia to combine two groups of animals he had previously kept separate:
(1) The class Quadrupedia "four-footed (animals)"--which Linnaeus had used for "traditional" mammals in the previous nine editions of Systema Natura, as warm-blooded animals with four legs and hair, including (controversially for his day) humans (Homo). The Quadrupedia also included bats and manatees, which have highly modified limbs (as winged forelimbs and as hind legs united in a fin).
and
(2) Cetaceans (whales, porpoises, and dolphins), given the new order Cete Linnaeus, 1758 under Mammalia. He had classified cetaceans previously as the order Plagiura "horizontal tails" under the class Pisces "Fishes" in the nine earlier editions of his Systema Naturae. The Cete differed from the Quadrupedia most obviously in having only two limbs in the form of fins instead of four legs or limbs (making the name Quadrupedia "four-footed" inaccurate for the revised combined class) and in near total lack of hair. (Some aquatic members of the Quadrupedia (seals) were almost completely lacking hair as noted by Linnaeus.)
In joining the Cete with the Quadrupedia under the Mammalia, Linnaeus cited the key features found in both groups, (pg. 17). He framed his comments in legalistic terms.
"Hos a piscibus divulsos jussi mammalibus associari ob cor biloculare calidum, pulmones respirantes, palpebras mobiles, aures cavas, penem intrantem feminam mammis lactantem, idque ex lege naturae jure meritoque." (pg. 17)
Roughly, in close to literal translation:
"These [Cete] are commanded separated from the fishes and joined with the mammals on account of their warm, double-chambered heart, their air-breathing lungs, their mobile eyelids, their hollow ears, and a [male organ] that enters the female, with teats that give milk; and this from the law of nature, by justice and merit."
In other words, the law of nature commands that cetaceans be classified with mammals.
****
For a short historical review of the classification of whales among animals, see:
Aldemaro Romero (2012) When Whales Became Mammals: The Scientific
Journey of Cetaceans From Fish to Mammals in the History of Science. in New Approaches
to the Study of Marine Mammals [online book] DOI: 10.5772/50811
****
Elsewhere in the 1758 text, Linnaeus stated that birds are also warm-blooded, breathe air, and have four-chambered hearts (pgs. 11, 12), and that sharks give birth to live young (pg. 234), so those properties were not uniquely distinctive to mammals in general. In addition, cetaceans lack hair, so that typically mammalian feature could not serve as a clear uniting character.
Linnaeus stressed that one feature set members of the combined Quadrupedia and Cete completely apart--unlike all other animals, the members of his new class Mammalia possessed teats (mammae). (pg. 14)
Teats were present (pg. 16) both in females (with teats that produce milk (mammae lactantes)) and in males, except, he thought, in the horse genus Equus [in fact, some equid species (donkeys, zebras) can have vestigial teats in males on the sheath]. He also divided the Mammalia into groups with distinct patterns in the number and placement of teats.
And, of course, Linnaeus was unaware in 1758 of teatless, milk-producing monotremes, not known to Western science until after his death (earliest descriptions: 1792 for the echnida, 1798 for the platypus; both not scientifically better understood until late in the 19th century, when rumored egg-laying was finally confirmed).
===========
Linnaeus says in Latin (pg. 14):
MAMMALIA haec & nulla alia mammata Animalia...
literally,
MAMMALIA these and no others mammate animals [are]...
or freely, "these animals and no others have teats"--which provides the reason for his choice of the name Mammalia, understood fully in context as "animals distinguished by having teats."
Mammalia vs. Mammata
Note that the Latin suffix -atus "having" as -ata in neuter plural adjective mammata above simply shows possession of teats in this case, whereas -alis (as -alia) in the neuter plural name Mammalia additionally can imply having teats as an especially distinctive or notable feature, thus expressing the idea that "these and no others" have teats (similar to having a pouch in the name Marsupiale Americanum discussed above).
Smithsonian biologist Theodore Gill (1837-1914) later pointed out this special sense for -alis in his discussion of the history of the word "mammal":
Gill, T. (1903) The Name Mammal and the Idea Expressed. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution: 1903. Government Printing Office, Washington pgs. 537-544
https://books.google.com/books?id=yEAWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA537&lpg=PA537&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
"...the Latin suffix (-alis) which expressed the idea of resemblance or relationship; anyway, it was used in substantive form, and the idea of possession or inclusion was involved, as in the case of animal, capital, feminal, tribunal--all well-known Latin words. In fine, a mammal is a being especially marked by or notable for having mammae." (pg. 539)
Also,
Gill, T. (1902) The Story of the Word Mammal. Popular Science Monthly 61: 434-438 (September)
https://books.google.com/books?id=qho4AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA434&lpg=RA1-PA434#v=onepage&q&f=false
===
Marsupialia and Placentalia
Authors after Linnaeus created similarly constructed higher category names as neuter plurals with -alia "having" [as a distinctive or notable feature] for two major subgroups of mammals:
Marsupialia "(mammals distinguished by) having a pouch"
Marsupialia Illiger, 1811 (Beutelthiere) ["pouch animals"] pg. 61
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/188747#page/83/mode/1up
===
Placentalia "(mammals distinguished by) having a placenta"
Â
***
A quick reminder of the complicated authorship and date for Placentalia, now wrongly cited in many sources based on a reference error in Simpson (1945) attributing the name to Owen, 1837 but in a source in fact published in 1852, not in 1837.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1945) The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85: 350 pp.
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/1104
***
A more accurate citation could be:
Placentalia Bonaparte, 1838 [ex "placental Mammalia" in Owen, 1837]
(The French biologist Charles Lucien Bonaparte (1803 â 1857) was a prince and a nephew of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.)
Bonaparte, C.L., 1838. Synopsis vertebratorum systematis. Nuovi Annali delle Scienze Naturali 2: 105-133 [in Latin]
http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/index.php?s=1&act=pdfviewer&id=1278300914&folder=127
pdf:
http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/127/1278300914.pdf
Bonaparte 1838 says in a footnote (pg. 107):
"Divisionem vero in Placentalia atque Ovovivipara, etsi ab aliis adumbratam, certis limitibus hodie conclusam cl. Oweno, Anglo. debemus."
In close to literal translation:
"The division, however, into Placentalia and Ovovivipara, although outlined by others, now circumscribed with proper boundaries, we owe to the celebrated Englishman Owen."
Note that strict classical Latin rules would give a spelling "Placentaria" because of the "L" in placenta. However, Bonaparte used Owen's English form "placental" as the basis for the Neo-Latin name Placentalia.
***
In the 1837 paper Bonaparte was referring to, Owen used the combination "placental Mammalia" (pgs. 88, 92, 93) in English, but not the fully Latinized form "Placentalia":
Owen, R. 1837. On the Structure of the Brain in Marsupial Animals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 127: 87-96
https://www.jstor.org/stable/108091?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Â
Owen had used the term "ovoviviparous" (but not the Latin name Ovovivipara) to described marsupials in a paper from 1834, but referred to "ordinary Mammalia" (not "placental Mammalia") in this older text.
Â
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1834.0019
Â
In later papers, he used the term "ovoviviparous Mammalia."
Â
Owen took credit for the Latin name Placentalia, as stated in his 1847 Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology article Mammalia:
"These primary groups or sub-classes I have named Placentalia and Implacentalia, indicative of the adherence of the ovum to the uterus in the one, and its non-adherence, as in the ovo-viviparous reptiles, in the other group." (pg. 244)
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/187867#page/262/mode/1up
Â
===========
===========
Â
Mammalia: to solve the place of humans or of whales?
Linnaeus's creation of the class Mammalia has been a source of historical debate--was the new class meant to solve the placement of humans or of cetaceans?
The book "I, Mammal" seems to have relied heavily on the following paper:
Schiebinger, Londa (1993) Why Mammals are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History. The American Historical Review 98(2): 382-411
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2166840 .
https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/98/2/382/131801?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Free pdf:
http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~hsalmun/pg251web/LI_readings/LS_mammals_e2.pdf
Schiebinger asserts that Linnaeus invented Mammalia mainly because of humans, and in particular, to emphasize the human female breast as a connection to brute nature, making it in a sense the "icon" of the class.
"Linnaeus created his term Mammalia in response to the question of humans' place in nature." pg. 393
(Schiebinger returned to these ideas in a number of later books as well.)
I found Schiebinger's paper quite interesting, but I'm not convinced that Linnaeus was trying to express a socio-political agenda with the name Mammalia--even if naively or unconsciously (as the paper suggests), which would be difficult to prove in any case. I can find no evidence so far in older texts that the name Mammalia was interpreted as a name based first and foremost on human females or understood as an encouragement for upper class women to breastfeed their own children. Linnaeus's attitudes toward the role of women in society and breastfeeding by natural mothers could certainly reflect educated attitudes of his day, but reading between the lines to explain his choice of the name Mammalia (based on the supposed (and misleading) meaning "of the breast") as a kind of manifesto feels more like a modern overinterpretation to me.
Â
In the previous 1756 9th edition of the Systema Naturae, Linnaeus had put the genus Homo (without a type species) under Quadrupedia, in the Anthropomorpha "man forms" (along with Simia and Bradypus), listed first with the phrase 'Nosce te ipsum' "Know thyself" (linked to a more detailed footnote about the capabilities and characters that distinguish humans as a genus) above Simia.
9th edition pg. 3
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/31214#page/19/mode/1up
In the 10th edition, Linnaeus replaced Anthropomorpha with the new order Primates (plural of Latin primas) "chiefs" for "chief (mammals)" or "first-ranking (mammals)"--so-named because it contained humans (now called Homo sapiens) and was thus in first place in the classification.
Latin primas, primatis (plural primates) "principal, chief, one of the first"
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/primas
Â
Notably, Linnaeus added Lemur (including lemurs, slow loris, colugo) and Vespertilio (bats) to the group Primates (to join Homo and Simia), but moved Bradypus (sloths) to the order Bruta. Homo (with the new type species Homo sapiens) was listed first (again with "nosce te ipsum" but linked to much expanded footnotes to list the special qualities of human beings) as under the previous Anthropomorpha. Linnaeus did not add any special comments about this rearrangement, which retained humans under the Quadrupedia and placed Homo immediately before Simia as in the 9th edition. Both the Anthropomorpha (9th edition) and the Primates (10th edition) have mammae pectorales "pectoral teats" and four incisors.
[Note that Linnaeus had classified bats as part of the Quadrupedia (and NOT as birds) in all nine of his earlier editions of the Systema beginning in 1735, under the order Ferae (along with Canis and Felis). He moved bats to the Primates in the Mammalia in the 10th edition in part because bats have functional hands [manus palmatae], similar to Homo, Simia, and Lemur, but within a flight membrane that also surrounds the body.]
Â
In contrast, as noted above, Linnaeus did provide a special comment about including whales, dolphins, and porpoises in the new Mammalia on pg. 17 of the 10th edition, in which he used legalistic phrasing and cited the "law of nature."
======
Why Whales Explain the Choice of Mammalia
If Linnaeus had been primarily concerned with promoting breastfeeding in upper class Europeans (one of Schiebinger's contentions) or highlighting nursing of young mammals in general, he might have chosen a different Neo-Latin name such as Lactantia, Lactabilia, or Lactifera "milk giving" to stress more clearly milk production by female animals (from Latin lac (lactis) "milk" or lacto "give milk"). (Schiebinger (1993) mentions this possibility for "Lactantia" as the name.) Had Linnaeus known about teatless, but milk-producing monotremes, such a name might have made more sense as well.
As I have tried to show, Linnaeus had clear scientific reasons for choosing the name Mammalia and, based on 18th century Neo-Latin, the combination Mammalia (from Latin mamma as "teats" + -alia as "having") was a direct and simple way to express his point that teats (found in both females and males) were a unique and distinctive feature that united "quadrupeds" with cetaceans (thus the intended full meaning "animals distinguished by having teats"), which otherwise differed in the construction of their limbs and in the presence or absence of hair. There were not many other ways to say it--a class named Mammata "having teats" might not have stressed the special distinctness of having teats.
Â
====
Â
Other Neo-Latin Names
Although the Neo-Latin name Mammalia as "having teats" was widely adopted, some researchers preferred, or alternated it with, different Latin names that made the point about possessing teats in a more obvious way, closer to classical Latin, using -atus "having" or the verb fero "bearing."
Mammifera "teat-bearers" (this Latin form postdates the earlier French mammifÃres "teat-bearers")
(less often) Mammata "having teats"
Placentaria Fleming, 1822 (using an "r" because of the "l" in placenta), which predates Placentalia
Fleming, 1822 Philosophy of Zoology
Placentata "having a placenta"
The term was used by Charles Darwin in the "Origin of Species" in preference to Placentalia.
Â
Marsupiata "having a marsupium"
Owen often used the names Marsupiata and Marsupialia interchangeably.
Â
======
======
"Mammal" in Modern Languages
Linnaeus's reclassification of warm-blooded, teat-possessing, milk-giving animals (now including whales) in the single group Mammalia in 1758 was widely accepted, although Linnaeus's divisions and placement of different types of genera within the Mammalia were often disputed (especially humans as Primates along with apes and monkeys).
See, for example:
Thomas Pennant (1771) Synopsis of Quadrupeds. J. Monk
=====
Vernacular Names for Mammalia
Linnaeus's Mammalia also inspired revised common name terminology in modern European languages, which lacked a general term for a group of animals that included both four-footed hairy animals and two-finned naked whales. However, the main idea behind the new vernacular terms differed--either emphasizing possession of teats, similar to the original meaning of Mammalia itself ("having teats"), as a more external anatomical feature (and also found in males) or, by contrast, emphasizing the purpose of teats--for production of milk by females to feed or suckle the young, and so a more functional biological and behavioral focus.
The early historical details in multiple languages are complicated and difficult to track down. Some 18th century material is not available in digital form. Older spellings and fonts are also a problem, and can be garbled when scanned in the digitizing process. I am still researching this topic and this brief review may need updating or correction in the future. That said, I have tried to clarify a number of current misunderstandings, in particular, the idea that Blumenbach's German name SÃugetier "suckling animal" originated with him as often indicated.
Modern common names for "mammal" in different languages:
http://www.ubio.org/browser/details.php?namebankID=2478620
***
This article in German discusses some of the issues:
Rainer, Franz (2007) Frz. mammifÃre oder: habent sua fata et termini technici. [French mammifÃre or they have their fate and technical terms] Zeitschrift fÃr franzÃsische Sprache und Literatur 117(1): 14-24
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40618861
Full text online here:
https://www.academia.edu/23277740/Frz._mammif%C3%A8re
===
Swedish: Spendjur "teat animals" 1762
According to a short article cited below, lists of animals that live in Sweden with Linnaeus's Latin names and the Swedish common name equivalents were published in 1762, based on Linnaeus's 1758 Systema Naturae (and likely also his 1759 Animalium specierum, and 1761 Fauna Svecica [which used the name Magnetes " " instead of Primates for humans and bats]). In the 1762 lists, the name Mammalia was translated as Spendjur, meaning "teat animals" from Swedish spene "teat, nipple" and djur "animal," and humans and bats were under the Primates, translated HÃgdjur "high animals." The glossary is said to be by the Swedish naturalist and botanist Abraham Samzelius (1723-1773), a contemporary of Linnaeus, and shows how the name Mammalia was understood shortly after the 10th edition appeared in 1758.
Noreen, Adolf (1903) Tvà sÃllsynta naturvetenskapliga ordfÃrteckningar frÃn 1700-talet. [Two rare natural scientific glossaries from the 18th century.] SprÃk och stil III, Uppsala
Â
Later Swedish sources (1779) have the word pattdjur (sometimes as pattedjur), also meaning "teat animal."
http://www.saob.se/artikel/?seek=patt-djur&pz=6#U_P425_91884
The current term dÃggdjur "nursing animal" or "suckling animal" for a mammal was widely adopted in Swedish by the early 19th century, evidently influenced by the German term SÃugetier "suckling animal."
https://www.saob.se/artikel/?unik=D_2401-0219.0tkB&pz=3
In other Scandinavian languages, the term pattedyr "teat animal" is used in modern Danish and in modern Norwegian for "mammal"--similar to the older term pattdjur in Swedish.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pattedyr
Icelandic, however, retains spendÃr.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spend%C3%BDr
***********
Dutch: Zoogende Dieren "suckling animals" 1761
The Dutch naturalist Martinus Houttuyn (1720-1798) was the first author to apply Linnaeus's new classification system for animals from the 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae (including binomial nomenclature) in a more detailed published work. His "Natural History" was not really a translation--the content includes much of what was in the Systema Naturae in some form, along with material from other sources (including Klein and Brisson). The Dutch text is written in complete sentences and includes illustrations and expanded descriptions of animals, as well as species not listed by Linnaeus in the 10th edition.
Houttuyn, Martinus (1761) Natuurlyke historie of uitvoerige beschryving der dieren, planten en mineraalen, volgens het samenstel van den heer Linnaeus: met naauwkeurige afbeeldingen, Volume 1 [Natural history or extensive description of animals, plants and minerals, in accordance with the classification of Mr. Linnaeus. With accurate pictures] F. Houttuyn, Amsterdam
https://books.google.com/books?id=9tD8GNp8mpcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Â
ÂFor a discussion of the work and Martinus Houttuyn's contributions to science, see:
Boeseman, M. & W. de Ligny. (2004) Martinus Houttuyn (1720-1798) and his contributions to the natural sciences, with emphasis on zoology. Zoologische Verhandelingen 349: 1-222
Â
Free pdf:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0817/cd1da8e5dcf33c80f5c97e4b31f2bcf2e8a8.pdf
Of particular note is Houttuyn's Dutch name for Linnaeus's Mammalia: Zoogende Dieren "suckling animals" (from the verb zogen "nurse, suckle"):
Eerste Klasse
MAMMALIA
ZOOGENDE DIEREN
(pg. 121)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9tD8GNp8mpcC&pg=RA1-PA121&lpg=RA1-PA121#=onepage&q&f=false
Paraphrasing Linnaeus, Houttuyn says: "Geen andere Dieren, dan deeze, zyn met Borsten voorzien" [No other animals than these are provided with breasts (teats)], but chooses a term "zoogende dieren" for Mammalia that emphasizes the function or the purpose of the organs to feed the young rather than simply possessing teats. (The choice of the term Zoogende Dieren instead of a more literal meaning such as "Borstdieren" for Mammalia is not directly explained.)
"De Wyfjes baaren Jongen en zoogen ze. [The females bear young and suckle them]." (pg. 118)
"Zo wel de Mannetjes als de Wyfjes draagen een bepaald getal von Borsten..." [The males as well as the females have a certain number of teats...] (pg. 127)
Â
*******
German: SÃugende Thiere "suckling animals" (1773)
Houttuyn's 1761 work based on the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae had a major influence on a later 1773 work by German naturalist Philipp Ludwig Statius MÃller (1725-1776), based on Linnaeus's 12th edition (1766-1768). The German work was again not a strict translation but a fully written text with expanded and updated content, with illustrations taken from Houttuyn's work at the end. MÃller included a German translation of Houttyn's introduction with an added detailed explanation.
MÃller, P. L. S. (1773) Des Ritters Carl von LinnÃ...VollstÃndiges Natursystem, nach der zwÃlften lateinischen Ausgabe, und nach Anleitung des hollÃndischen Houttuynischen Werks, mit einer ausfÃhrlichen ErklÃrung. Gabriel Nicolaus Raspe, NÃrnberg
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/106875#/summary
MÃller uses the term "SÃugende Thiere" [suckling animals] for Mammalia, directly patterned after Houttuyn's Dutch "Zoogende Dieren," but also analogous to already existing 18th century German sÃugende Kinder, sÃugendeÂKuh, etc.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/205840#page/91/mode/1up
=========
German: SÃugthiere "suckling animals" 1775
The German single word shortened form "SÃugthiere" (expressing the same idea as SÃugende Thiere) appeared in print shortly after.
Schreber, J. C. D. (1775). Die SÃugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen. [The Suckling Animals in Illustrations after Nature with Descriptions] Erster Theil. [First Part]
https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/schreber1775ga
Additional later volumes also here:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/135003#page/5/mode/1up
The text includes the similarly formed word SÃugwarzen for nipples. [Other 18th century German sources have terms with SÃug- such as SÃugamme ("wetnurse"), SÃugkind ("nursing infant"), SÃugkalb ("suckling calf"), SÃuglamm ("suckling lamb"), etc.]
Â
The German naturalist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) also used the spelling "SÃugthiere" for Mammalia in the first edition (1779) of his influential (and in the future, expanded multi-edition) Handbuch der Naturgeschichte [Manual of Natural History]:
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich (1779) Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. J. C. Dieterich. GÃttingen. 448 pp.
"SÃugthiere (mammalia)" pg. 44
Blumenbach focused on the act of suckling the young:
"...sie einige Zeit lang mit Milch an BrÃsten sÃugen." [they suckle for some time with milk at the breasts] (pg. 45)
=====
German: SÃugethiere "suckling animals" 1782
In the revised 1782 second edition of his Handbuch, Blumenbach changed the German spelling and pronunciation to SÃugethiere, inserting a "euphonic" vowel "e" as an extra syllable. This form would become standard in German, later revised further to drop the h in the spelling. [Terms such as SÃugewarzen, SÃugekind, etc., also existed in German at the time with a similar "e" spelling.]
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich (1782) Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. (2nd ed.) J. C. Dieterich. GÃttingen. 561 pp.
"SÃugethiere (mammalia)" (pg. 42)
******
Based on Blumenbach and his Handbuch, the German term SÃugetier (SÃugethier) to mean "suckling animal" apparently influenced other Germanic languages such as Swedish dÃggdjur (as mentioned above).
Dutch eventually adopted a shortened form zoogdier/zoogdieren, first used (or at least first attested) in 1811 according to sources, and said to be patterned after German SÃugetier--although, as noted above, the Dutch term "zoogende dieren" was the historical inspiration for the German term--and 18th century Dutch already had words such as zoogkind "nursling, baby" and zoogkalf "nursing calf," etc.
ZOOGDIER - (DIER DAT ZIJN JONGEN MET MELK VOEDT)
http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/zoogdier
M. Philippa, F. Debrabandere, A. Quak, T. Schoonheim en N. van der Sijs (2003-2009) Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands, 4 delen, Amsterdam
zoogdier zn. 'dier dat zijn jongen zoogt, klasse Mammalia'. Nnl. zoogdier [1811; WNT]. Samenstelling van de stam van zogen en â dier, mogelijk gevormd als leenvertaling van Duits SÃugetier 'zoogdier, dat in 1782 geÃntroduceerd schijnt te zijn door de Duitse zoÃloog Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).
[Compound from the stem of zogen [suckling] and â dier [animal], possibly formed as a loan translation of German SÃugetier "mammal", which appears to have been introduced in 1782 by German zoologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).]
Â
======
Â
Slavic Terms
[I am currently trying to find more information on the history of terms for mammals in Slavic languages. Not much older material (18th, early 19th centuries) is available online that I can find. In addition, older texts in Slavic languages may have different spellings or alphabet letters from the standard modern forms, which also can have special diacritical marks, making Google text searches more difficult. The etymological sources I have been able to find don't give detailed histories.]
Blumenbach's German term SÃugetiere may also have influenced Slavic languages, which adopted terms that translate as "suckers" or "sucklers" for mammals (singular and plural forms): Croatian: sisavac/sisavci; Czech: savec/savci; Polish: ssak/ssaki; Slovak: cicavec/cicavce, etc.
Russian mÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑÐe [mlekopitaiushchiye] "mammals"
[There are many inconsistencies in how Russian words are transliterated into English. I used what Google Translate gives as a Latin alphabet equivalent. Unfortunately, the Latin letter y sometimes can stand for a particular "hard" vowel (a sound roughly between "uh" and short i in English) or for an initial glide or semi-vowel to indicate "soft" vowels, or a glide at the end of a diphthong, Âand palatalized softening of a consonant.]
Russian opted from a more detailed term (in modern form singular/plural): mÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑee/mÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑÐe [mlekopitaiushcheye/mlekopitaiushchiye], a neuter adjective (the neuter noun "animal" being understood) used like a noun that translates literally as "milk-feeder" ("milk-feeding") from noun mleko (archaic form of moloko) "milk" + participle of verb pitat' "to feed":
I am still trying to find when the term first came into use, but it was evidently adopted in some form by the 1790s.
The term mÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑiÑ [mlekopitaiushchiya] for German SÃugetiere is found in the 1797 Russian translation of Blumenbach's Manual of Natural History.
Online digital text version (with older Russian spellings and alphabet (and a few typos!)):
[About milk-feeding or nipple-lactating animals.]
Â
However, the stand-alone name ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑiÑ "milk-feeders" apparently is not used in the text, only the phrase or combination ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑiÑ ÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑ [mlekopitaiushchiya zhivotnyya] "milk-feeding animals" to correspond to German SÃugetiere.
=====
The name ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑiÑ [Mlekopitaiushchiya] "milk-feeders" as a stand-alone substantive is found in Russian naturalist Alexander Sewastianow's (1771-1824) 1804 Russian translation of Linnaeus.
ÐÐÐÐÑÑÑÑÐÐÐ, ÐÐÐÐÑÐÐÐÑ (1804) ÐÐÑÑÐÐÐ ÐÑÐÑÐÐÑ ÐÐÑÐÐ ÐÐÐÐÐÑ: ÑÐÑÑÑÐÐ ÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑ. ÐÐÑÑÑ I [System of Nature of Carl Linnaeus: Animal Kingdom. Part 1]
ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÑÐÑÑiÑ [Mlekopitaiushchiya]. Mammalia (pg. 24)
https://books.google.com/books?id=6mllAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA24&lpg=RA1-PA24#=onepage&q&f=false
Â
Note that the spellings of the singular and the plural word endings were later revised during education reforms that simplified (somewhat) the Russian alphabet, spellings, and grammar to promote literacy following the Russian Revolution in 1917.
===========
============
Â
Romance Languages "Teat-Bearers"
Contrasting with languages that chose a one-word term emphasizing suckling (Swedish dÃggdjur, Dutch zoogdier, and Slavic languages), evidently influenced by Blumenbach's 1782 German term SÃugetier/SÃugetiere, based on his multi-edition Manual of Natural History, Romance languages generally chose terms meaning "teat-bearer" and thus closer in literal meaning to Linnaeus's Mammalia "having teats" as it was understood at the time.
Â
French: MammifÃres
Modern French uses the term mammifÃre/mammifÃres for mammal/mammals. The story behind the term is complicated.
Â
French: animaux à mammelles "animals with teats" 1762
In a 1762 French mention of Houttyn's 1761 Natural History, "zoogende dieren" for Linnaeus's Mammalia is translated as "animaux à mammelles" rather than the literal Dutch meaning:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k98117831/f56.image.r=Zoogende?rk=21459;2
[There may be older cases of "animaux à mammelles" as the French meaning of Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758.]
The form "animaux à mammelles" was later respelled "animaux à mamelles" and expresses a meaning for Mammalia similar to "animals having teats."
The 1793 French translation of Gmelin's Latin 13th edition of the Systema Naturae (mostly rephrased in complete sentences) used the term "animaux à mamelles" [animals with teats], paralleling the meaning "animals having teats" for Latin Mammalia.
Les Animaux à mamelles. Mammalia (pg. 16)
https://books.google.com/books?id=VNg4AAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA16&lpg=RA1-PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false
Carl von LinneÌ; Johann Friedrich Gmelin [translated by Josephe Francois Philippe Vanderstegen de Putte] (1793) SysteÌme de la nature de Charles de LinneÌ. Classe premiere du regne animal, contenant les quadrupeÌdes vivipares & les ceÌtaceÌes. Lemaire, Brussels.
https://books.google.com/books?id=VNg4AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6565912x.texteImage
The French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) used "animaux à mamelles" in most of his writings.
====
French: Mammaux 1789
Since French has the term animal/plural animaux, the analogous terms mammal/mammaux would seem a logical possibility.
Indeed, the 1789 French translation of this 1781 English book used "Mammaux" as the French equivalent of Mammalia.
Richard Pulteney (1781) A General View of the Writings of Linnaeus. T. Payne and B. White London
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/175082#page/7/mode/1up
[Pulteney only uses "Mammalia" without a vernacular or a singular form.]
==
French translation:
Revue gÃnÃrale des Ãcrits de LinnÃ. Tome 1 / ; ouvrage dans lequel on trouve les anecdotes les plus intÃressantes de sa vie privÃe, un abrÃgà de ses systÃmes et de ses ouvrages, un extrait de ses AmÃnitÃs acadÃmiques, &c. &c. &c. Par Richard Pulteney, traduit de l'anglois, par L.-A. Millin de Grandmaison ; avec des notes et des additions du traducteur - 1789
"Classe I. MAMMALIA. Mammaux." (pg. 79)
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9802206j/f95.item.r=%22mammaux%22
Translator's note:
"Linnà a adoptà le mot mammalia, animaux à mammelles, parce que tous les animaux de cette classe allaitent leurs petits. J'ai cru pouvoir hasarder de rendre le mot mammalia par le nom univoque mammaux." (pg. 47)
Â[Linnaeus adopted the word mammalia, animals with teats, because all the animals of this class provide milk to their young. I have ventured, thinking it allowable, to render the word mammalia by the unique name mammaux.]
Â
The plural Mammaux implies a singular "mammal" (a word not found in the text) by analogy with "animal/animaux" in French. However, the terms "mammal" and "mammaux" were never widely adopted in French.
===
French: mammifÃres "teat-bearers" 1791?
By the late 18th century, however, French naturalists generally had settled on the single word masculine noun mammifÃre "teat-bearer" (from Latin mamma, by evident analogy with earlier French words (mainly adjectives) such as aurifÃre "gold-bearing," lanifÃre "wool-bearing," etc., based on Latin fero "bear, carry"), translating Linnaeus' original meaning "animals having teats" (also expressed in animaux à mamelles "animals with teats" as noted) for Mammalia to express possession of teats in a more direct form. (The combination mamellifÃre also was used on occasion.) The earliest usage of the term mammifÃre remains murky but it may date from 1790 or before (perhaps in informal usage).
The title of a "mÃmoire" presented to the SociÃtà d'histoire naturelle by the French physician Philippe Pinel (1745-1826) (famous as a pioneer in the humane treatment of mental illness) is the earliest published use of "mammifÃre" that I have been able to find in digital form online.
"MÃmoire sur une classification anatomique des mammifÃres, par M. P I N E L."
L'arcade zigomatique forme une courbe à anse de panier, dont la convexità est tournÃe en haut , dans les carnivores. Cette courbe devient une ligne presque droite dans les frugivores; dans les herbivores , la courbe est totalement inverse à celle des carnivores, et sa convexità est tournÃe en bas." (pg. 2)
(1791) Anatomie. "MÃmoire sur une classification anatomique des mammifÃres, par M. P I N E L." Bulletin des sciences (SociÃtà philomathique de Paris) 1:2
Âhttps://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/28082#page/14/mode/1up
The full paper was published in 1792, but Pinel used the more traditional term "quadrupÃdes" [quadrupeds] throughout instead of "mammifÃres":
Pinel, Philippe (1792) Recherches sur une nouvelle mÃthode de classification des quadrupÃdes, fondÃe sur la structure mÃchanique des parties osseuses qui servent à lâarticulation de la mÃchoire infÃrieure. Actes de la socieÌteÌ d'histoire naturelle de Paris 1: 50â60.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/163187#page/84/mode/1up
Â
Later in the same issue, however, Brongniart did use the term "mammifÃres":
Brongniart, Alexandre (1792) Catalogue des mammifÃres envoyÃs de Cayenne par M. Le Blond. Actes de la socieÌteÌ d'histoire naturelle de Paris 1: 115
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/163187#page/149/mode/1up
Â
For a fuller discussion of the history of mammifÃre, see this online entry from the CNRTL:
https://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/mammif%C3%A8re
(The 1791 mention not found by the researchers appears to be the 1791 Pinel citation given above. )
==
The French naturalist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) used "mammifÃres" in his many writings as early as 1797, essentially giving his blessing to the term.
Cuvier, Georges (1797-1798) Tableau ÃlÃmentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux. Baudouin, Paris
MammifÃres (pg. 83)
https://books.google.com/books?id=igttwqdXGCIC&&pg=RA1-PA83&lpg=RA1-PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false
Â
==============
Other Romance languages soon after adopted their own versions of a mammifÃre-like "teat-bearer" combination, evidently based on the French model: Spanish: mamÃfero/mamÃferos; Portuguese: mamÃfero/mamÃferos; Italian: mammÃfero/mammÃferi
Online primary source digital documents show that the plural terms "mamÃferos" (in Spanish) and "mammÃferi" (in Italian) were in use by the first decade of the 19th century. I'm still trying to track down the earliest citations, which possibly may date to the late 1790s.
The online Diccionario MÃdico-BiolÃgico, HistÃrico y EtimolÃgico (in Spanish) gives this etymology for "mamÃfero" and a supposed 1713 earliest document source as Italian "mammiferi" that I have not been able to find. If the 1713 citation exists (and the given date is not an error of some sort), it likely has no connection to the later Linnaeus-inspired French mammifÃre, which was almost certainly the source of Spanish mamÃfero in the modern sense. The Spanish term likely was not a direct formation from Latin nor a borrowing from Italian.
[mamm(am) lat. 'mama' + -i- lat. + -fer-u(m)/-a(m) lat. 'que lleva']
Leng. base: lat. Neol. s. XVIII. Docum. en it. mammiferi en 1713.
https://dicciomed.usal.es/palabra/mamifero-ra
Â
====
English "Mammal"
English is unusual among European languages in using the word "mammal" derived directly from Linnaeus's Mammalia, by analogy with the classical Latin noun animal also used in English.
For more on the early history of words for mammal in English, again, see Gill (already cited above):
Gill, T. (1903) The Name Mammal and the Idea Expressed. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution: 1903. Government Printing Office, Washington pgs. 537-544
https://books.google.com/books?id=yEAWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA537&lpg=PA537&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
Â
The British naturalist John Mason Good (1764-1827) is usually credited with the word "mammals" as the English equivalent for Mammalia. He used the term as early as 1813 in the Pantologia, an early encyclopedia.
"MAMMALIA...It includes all animals, as indeed its name imports, that suckle their young by the possession of a mammalian or mammary organ. In English we have no direct synonym for this term... We have hence thought ourselves justified in vernaculizing the Latin term, and translating mammalia mammals, or breasted-animals."
Pantologia 1813 vol. 7 LHW--MID (pages unnumbered)
Â
However, the term "mammals" did not catch on immediately. (Richard Owen may have been the first to use the singular "mammal" in 1846.)
Blumenbach, Johann Friedrich [translated by R. T. Gore] (1825) A Manual of the Elements of Natural History.W. Simpkin & R. Marshall, London 415 pages
The terms used in the translated text are Mammalia, mammifera, and mammiferous animals, but not mammals or mammal, (nor "suckling animals" based on the literal meaning of the German termÂSÃugetiere).
Bridgewater Treatises from the 1830s use the term Mammalians rather than mammal and mammals.
=======
=======
The bottom line here as a recommendation (or better yet, as a resolution!) would be to use the historically supported Neo-Latin meaning for Mammalia and English mammals as (in short form) "animals having teats" (per Richard Owen, etc.) rather than the misleading "belonging to the breast" or "of the breast." (To be truly precise, the implied full meaning "animals distinguished by having teats" for Mammalia might be worth mentioning.) Also, it would better to cite the Schiebinger's 1993 paper or "I, Mammal" advisedly on the topic, as partly a modern reinterpretation "reading between the lines" of what Linnaeus said and had in mind, by emphasizing humans--instead of animals in general that possess teats, the distinctive anatomical feature that Linnaeus chose to unite hairy four-limbed animals with cetaceans as the "mammals" we know and love.
====================