known the trees of the country. It is also difficult to believe that 

 Glen had not heard of Catesby 's work. 



Alexander Hewat^ makes no attempt to catalog the trees of the 

 state, giving only very general references to flora, though appar- 

 ently more interested in animals. 



WILLIAM BARTRAM 



While bibhographically Bartram's^ travels follow the publica- 

 tion of Walter 's Flora Caroliniana, yet in point of time they pre- 

 cede, being made in the years 1773-8. Bartram traveled through 

 a small section only of South CaroHna, but he was a keen observer 

 of plants and had a scientific knowledge of botany possessed by no 

 earlier observer of trees in this state. A long step has been taken 

 when, in describing the shrubs along the sand dunes, a traveler 

 tells us that he found "Quercus pumila" and " Myrica cerifera^," 

 instead of making a general reference to oak and myrtle. With 

 Bartram begins the modern scientific study of South Carolina trees. 

 Catesby had done magnificent work, but he was not a trained bot- 

 anist and he lived too early in the century to have adopted the 

 Linnean nomenclature. 



Humphrey Marshall, in 1785, published the first botanical work, 

 as well as the first tree book, printed in North America, and while 

 Marshall is in no sense of the word a South Carolina botanist, his 

 Arbustrum Americanum is important as giving first descriptions 

 of several South Carolina trees, 



THOMAS WALTER 



Thomas Walter is the first South Carolinian to study the trees 

 of the state, and even he was born in England. But coming to 

 this country when a young man and in all ways affiliating him- 

 self with South Carolina, he may properly be said to belong to it. 

 All former important work on its trees had been done by travelers 



' (Hewat, Alexander.l An historical account of the rise and progress of the colonies of 

 South Carolina and Georgia. 2 v. 1779. 



'Bartram, William. Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia. East and 

 West Florida . . . Lond. 1792. 



•Ibid, p. 469. 



10 



