Before Linnaeus and Darwin: the hierarchical taxonomy of Li Shizhen’s Bencao Gangmu

Background: (Compendium of Materia Medica, 1596), by Li Shizhen (1518-1593), is one of the most comprehensive pre-modern pharmacopoeias in the history of traditional medicine. Comprising 1,892 drug species organized into the inorganic, plant, and animal kingdoms, this foundational text of Chinese traditional pharmacology documents the therapeutic uses, morphological descriptions, and ecological contexts of medicinal substances-roughly 175-300 years before the formalized systems of Western taxonomy and natural history were established. Aim: This study examines the structural and epistemological parallels between Li Shizhen's four-tiered classification system and the taxonomic frameworks of Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882), evaluates the historical transmission of the Compendium to Europe, and argues for integrating this text into modern medical and scientific education curricula. Methods: , available through the National Central Library (Taiwan) and the Chinese Text Project digital archive (ctext.org), along with Open CourseWare materials from National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University. Li Shizhen's four-tiered organizational hierarchy was evaluated against the Linnaean taxonomic system and the theory of evolution by natural selection. Results: Li Shizhen's classification system (kingdom → department → category → species) predates the Linnaean taxonomic hierarchy by about 175 years and reflects empirically and morphologically grounded groupings consistent with what is now recognized as alpha taxonomy. The Compendium's sequential ordering of organisms, attention to intraspecific variation, empiricist critical methodology, and ecologically grounded groupings collectively exhibit structural and epistemological features analogous to-though not mechanistically anticipating-elements of Darwinian natural history. These parallels are structural and analogical; the Compendium does not articulate a theory of evolutionary transformation, and its sequential ordering reflects a traditional Chinese cosmological framework rather than evolutionary genealogy. Conclusion: is a significant contribution to the global history of systematic natural inquiry, and its classificatory achievements merit scholarly recognition alongside those of Linnaeus and Darwin. Incorporating it into medical and scientific education curricula would deepen students' understanding of the diverse cultural foundations of pharmacology, taxonomy, and evidence-based medical reasoning.