86 



THE GARDENERS' MONTHLY 



[March, 



Natural History and Science. 



COMMUNICATIONS. 



ON THE FERTILIZATION OF WHEAT. 

 BY MR. A. VEITCH, NEW HAVEN, CONN. 



I have no reason to doubt the correctness of 

 Mr. Carman's statement that in his experiments 

 with wheat some of the offspring differed slightly 

 from the parents. But it is an open question 

 whether those differences were due to the means 

 he employed or to the inherent tendency of this 

 plant to vary, without the aid of cross-fertilization. 

 It is admitted that crossing cannot be accomplished 

 through natural agencies, and if so one of two 

 things must be true, either the earliest inhabitants 

 of the globe understood cross-fertilization as prac- 

 ticed by Mr. C, or all the varieties known until a 

 recent period were the result of cultivation, pure 

 and simple. We cannot believe that the first 

 method was known at an early date, otherwise the 

 ancients do not receive as much credit from the 

 moderns as they deserve. And we are assured that 

 in the wheat plant varieties have been obtained 

 without the aid of artificial crossing. 



No better illustration can be given of this vari- 

 able tendency than is presented by the experiments 

 of M. Fabre, of France, on /Egilops ovata, an 

 annual grass common in the south of Europe, and 

 still used as an article of food by the poorer classes 

 of Sicily. In 1838, M. Fabre sowed the seed of 

 this grass, and continued the process for eight 

 years in succession, at the end of which time he 

 obtained a fair sample of wheat. This was dis- 

 puted at the time and caused quite a controversy, 

 the substance of which was published in the Lon- 

 don Gardener s Chronicle, in the year 1846 or 

 1847. A similar series of experiments was con- 

 ducted by Prof. Buckman, of England, between 

 the years 1855 and 1859, which resulted in con- 

 firming M. Fabre's reports in every particular. 

 In the latter case modification took place by the 

 disappearance of the awns of the palets and the 

 shortening of those which spring from the lateral 

 ribs of the glumes ; the ears at the same time los- 

 ing their fragility, and the increase of the grain in 

 size, &c. 



Whilst these experiments were in progress, con- 



siderable variation would no doubt be observed 

 in the annual crops, and we cannot suppose that 

 in either case a point was reached beyond which 

 no further change could take place. Varieties so 

 obtained may possess characters that are compar- 

 atively stable, but secondary traits such as color 

 and size of grain, large or small ears, earliness or 

 latenesss, weight of straw, &c., might all occur 

 through diversity of soil, climate, &c., and these we 

 claim to be the chief agents in producing the dif- 

 ferent varieties of wheat. There is nothing in this 

 but that might be accomplished by an unintelli- 

 gent people impelled by the pressing law of neces- 

 sity, acting upon their natural instincts and sa- 

 gacity. 



Whether .-Egilops ovata is to be regarded as the 

 prototype of the varieties of wheat in cultivation has 

 not yet been determined, but from the ghmpes we 

 obtain of its use by the earhest settlers of Europe, 

 it undoubtedly has played an important part in 

 this connection. We know that before history be- 

 gan to be written, and whilst the Europeans made 

 war upon each other and the brute creation, with 

 weapons made of stone and bone, .Egilops was 

 not unknown to them as an article of food. For 

 in the lake dwellings of Switzerland it has been 

 found associated with the relics of that primitive 

 people in such a state of preservation as to leave 

 no room to doubt its relationship with wheat. 



In all the accounts which have come under our 

 notice in reference to the amelioration of this grain, 

 no mention is made of crossing having been re- 

 sorted to as a means to that end. Perhaps there 

 is not now a true hybrid in cultivation. If there 

 is, how, where and from what species obtained ? 

 It is true Mr. Carman tells us he has crossed 

 wheats hundreds of times, and Mr. Beaton as un- 

 equivocally asserts that to do so is impossible. 

 When statements are so opposite a fallacy must 

 lurk somewhere, and all we are after is to know 

 the facts of the case. As Mr. Beaton was a close 

 I observer and painstaking experimentaUst, I have 

 ' hitherto placed much confidence in his statements, 

 and chiefly because they are in harmony with my 

 j own observations on related cleistogamous plants. 

 1 It would seem that there is something in the econ- 

 : omy of such plants that requires concealment; but 



