PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 77 



he is styled in Virginian history, appears to have been born in 

 Fulham, a suburb of London, in 1686, and to have accompanied 

 his father, John Clayton, subsequently Attorney-General of Vir 

 ginia, when he came to this country in 1705. He was clerk of 

 Gloucester County, Virginia, for fifty-one years, and died De 

 cember 15, 1773. u He passed a long life," says Thacher, 

 " in exploring and describing the plants of this country, and is 

 supposed to have enlarged the botanical catalogue as much as any 

 man who ever lived." He was a correspondent of Linnaeus, 

 Gronovius, and Collinson, and the latter wrote of him in 1764 as 

 " my friend John Clayton, the greatest botanist of America." 



Clayton's " Flora Virginica," which was edited by Gronovius, 

 assisted by the young Linnaeus, who was just entering upon his 

 career of success, and was then resident in Ley den, began to ap 

 pear in 1739, subsequent portions being published in 1743 and 

 1762. It seems to be the opinion of botanists that Gronovius de 

 serves less credit for his share in this work than has usually been 

 allowed him, and that Clayton's descriptions were those of a 

 thorough master of botanical science as then understood. He 

 communicated to the Royal Society various botanical papers, in 

 cluding one upon the culture of the different kinds of tobacco. 

 At his death he left two volumes of manuscripts, and an herba 

 rium, with marginal notes and references for the engraver who 

 should prepare the plates for his proposed work. These were in 

 the possession of his son when the revolutionary war commenced, 

 and were placed in the office of the clerk of New Kent county 

 for security from the invading enemy. The building was burned 

 down by incendiaries, and thus perished not only the records of 

 the countj but probably one of the most important works on 

 American botany written before the days of Gray and Torrey. 



Jefferson declares that Clayton was a native Virginian, and 

 such is the confusion in the records that it is quite possible that 

 such may be the fact.* 



*See SpotsTVood Letters, i, pp. i, 8; ii, pp. 44, 58, 3<J<5- 



