3 8c4. Gn the Smut of Wheat, 35 



wheat ? Tlie same observation apj^llcj, if flie Jljcazc ariie.i 

 from the eggs of insects. 



As well may the inmimcrable, and almoat imperceptible 

 insects that prey upon, and destroy a great proportion of tlie 

 i?ap, leaves, and fruits of every tree, be supposed to be de- 

 rived from the root of the tree ; but with the root they hav^e 

 no connection, most of them becoming winged animaJcula. 

 The seeds of minute plants are also carried about by every 

 breath of wind. The mould of cheese is discovered by the 

 micro'^cope, to be a forest in mininture, well supplied with 

 inhabitants. 



Sir John Call supposes, that the smut is occasioned by cer- 

 tain animalcula deposited in the husks of the ear, when the 

 wheat is in blossom, which are fed and brought to perfection 

 by devouring the milky juice ; and he observes, that were 

 the disease radical in the original grain of the seed-Vv'heat, or 

 infectious from the juice arising through the pores and tube 

 of the stalk, there could not be, in the same ear, grains, some 

 decayed, and others quite perfect. 



To bring tlie matter to the test of experiment. Sir Jolm 

 collected a quantity of smutted ears of wheat, in some of 

 which were two or more grains apparently perfect ; all which 

 he caused to be rubbed out with the hand in a bag, smut and 

 altogether. The fresh grains found in the bag were then 

 sown in a particular ridge, amongst other wheat, in a field 

 under tillage. Their grow^th from the first was similar to 

 the rest of the wheat, and from a certificate of respectable 

 farmers, it appears their produce was as free from smut, as 

 that of the field in general. 



Hence the conclusion is drawn, that washing or pickling 

 wheat, as a remedy against the smut^ is unnecessary and 

 useless ; and that, as blights and other diseases of plants are 

 more prevalent, from circumstaaces, in some seasons than 

 in others, so the smut is an accident of a like nature, wh'ch 

 mankind can neither foresee nor prevent. 



The above doctrine may appear new and unsatisfactory to 

 many respectable and expetienccd farmers, whose senti- 

 ments I woul.d wish to learn before nraking up my mind on 

 the subject. I only state the experiment of another, and 

 bring it forward to your readers in the v/ay that I tliink most 

 plausible. 



I am yours, 



A. S. 



C 2 veT£ 



