A Boranican Description, &c, 335 
With the firft of thefe fpecies Linnzus could not but have 
been pretty well acquainted, as it had been ficured and de- 
feribed by Tournefort, by Catefby*, by Mentzelius, and 
other botanifts, before him, and as he tells us he had an op- 
portunity of examining the living plant. Of the other /up- 
pofed {pecies of Podophyllum, his knowledge was much lets 
complete. In the Species Plantarum, he mentions itas a na- 
tive of Virginia, on the authority of his friend Mr. Peter 
Collinfon, and gives the following defcription of it. * Fo- 
‘ lia radicaha, petiolata, binata ut in Hymenea, glabra, in= 
“ tegerrima, femicordata, abfyue pedicellis. Scapus ra- 
“ dicalis, uniflorus, fructu antecedéntis” (i.e. Podophyl- 
lum peltatum). Flos mibi non vifus.” 
In the thirteenth edition of the Syfema Nature, printed 
at Vienna, in 1770, Linnzus ftill retains the two fpecies 
of Podophyllum, which I have mentioned: but, at this pe- 
riod, he feems to be uncertain whether his: diphyllim is 
aCtually a fpecies of the genus to which he originally re=. 
ferred it, as appears from the following words, fubjoined 
to the fpecifick character of the plant: viz. “ an Sangui- 
“narie fpecies? cum Folium umcum binatum & Scapus 
“ aphyllus radicalis &> Capfula oblonga.” He then tells 
us that he has not feen the flowers, and that the plant 
was fent to him (I preiume, either by Collinfon or by Gro- 
novius) as a f{pecies of Podophyllum. 
In the quarto-edition of the I’/ra Virginica of my in- 
duftrious countryman Dr. John Clayton}, which was pub- 
lifhed 
* Catefby’s figure is not very accurate. 
+ The fate of thofe few perfons who have cultivated botanical knowledge in North-America, 
has been rather fingular. ‘The labours of Mr. John Banitter were not inconfiderable, but they: 
are fwallowed up in the extenfive writings of Mr. Ray, and not one botanift im a thoufand 
knows any thing of them. The fervices of Clayton were greater. In colleGting, and in in- 
veftioating the hiftory of plants, his enthufiafm and his induftry were immenfe. He tranfmic- 
ed his fpecimens and annotations to Gronovius, who could not have found it a difficult tafk to 
arrange the plantsinto a fyftematic form. ‘The Flora Virginica is a refpeftable work, with 
which no botaniit fhould be unacquainted. In reading this work, it isa duty which we owe 
to merit to confider the volume as the Jabour of Clayton andnot of Gronovius, who kind- 
ly robbed the Ameriean botanift of the honourof his difcoveries, whilft he reapt the pecuni~ 
ary profits of his toils, 
