Do you not understand the difference between scientific taxonomy and scientific nomenclature? It isn't my job to explain it; you should be able to google it easily enough.

The article you're citing is about taxonomy. It asserts that scientific taxonomy is a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles. It is not about nomenclature. It has nothing whatsoever to say about nomenclature. It does not make the connection between vernacular names and scientific names that you are claiming for it.

I understand this. Guettarda understands this: "Fundamentally, the Raven paper is about higher taxa, not species, not binomials. Not related to this paragraph in any meaningful way." Casliber understands this: "I have to concur with Guettarda and Hesperian - it doesn't touch on the issue of binomial names really at all."

I intend to continue removing unsourced material, and, in particular, putatively sourced material that fails verification. I have no objection to you referring the matter to Wikipedia arbitration.

Hesperian