Background
S.F. Gray was the son of Samuel Gray, a London seedsman.
Botanist mycologist Pharmacologist Zoologist
S.F. Gray was the son of Samuel Gray, a London seedsman.
He was the father of the zoologists John Edward Gray and George Robert Gray. He received no inheritance and, after failing to qualify for medicine, turned to medical and botanical writing. He subsequently set up an apothecary business in Wapping, but this failed within a few years, after which time he seems to have maintained himself by writing and lecturing.
Gray wrote a Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia, published in 1818 with several subsequent editions.
In 1819 he became co-editor of the London Medical Repository, to which he contributed many articles on medical, botanical, and other topics. In 1823 he published The Elements of Pharmacy and in 1828 The Operative Chemist, both practical reference works.
A Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia: being a Treatise on Pharmacology in general. Underwood, London A new and improved Education
1821 Digital edition by the University and State Library Düsseldorf
A Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia: being a Treatise on Pharmacology in general.Underwood, London 3rd Education
1824 Digital edition by the University and State Library Düsseldorf
A Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia, and Treatise on Pharmacology in general. Underwood, London 5th Education 1831 Digital edition by the University and State Library Düsseldorf
Gray"s major text of interest today is, published in two volumes in 1821.
The book itself is innovative, being the first British flora to employ Jussieu"s natural system of plant classification, an improvement on the artificial classification of Linnaeus.
Probably for this reason, it was not well received by conservative botanists of the day. also included substantial sections on fungi, then classed as cryptogamic plants, introducing many new genera, including Auriscalpium, Coltricia, Leccinum, and Steccherinum, that remain in current use. Despite its recognised nomenclatural importance today, it was neglected by British botanists after its publication due to "its idiosyncrasies, anti-Linnaean character, unorthodox nomenclature, narrow generic concepts and contemporary hostility to the supposed author R. A. Salisbury.".