I guess so. It's hard for me to think of anyone prior to about the mid 1800s as a scientist, but sure, he qualifies by the standards of the day.
I still don't understand why people view Linnaeus' classification as scientific though. I guess maybe because it functioned as a hypothesis of common descent later on?
> Newton was ... not a scientist.
That has a meaning, and its false. Whatever you personally think of it, Newton was a scientist. I don't love a wild goose chase.