119 
which should, as far as possible, preclude the agency of accidental infection, but 
conversely the wheat mildew was sown upon barberry plants—with the result, it 
may be premised, of once again demonstrating that the barberry fungus and the 
wheat mildew are two states of one and the same fungus. Lest it should be 
thought I have jumped too eagerly to this conclusion it may here be said that 
when I began these experiments this year it was with a mind biased against the 
theory of ‘“‘hetercecism” (that is, the occurrence of the same fungus in different 
phases of its growth on totally different plants), that the experiments now amount 
to more than a hundred, and that they have embraced many other species of Ure- 
dines besides the one which forms the subject of this paper. Had we given our 
forefathers more credit for the faculty of observation it would not have taken us 
a hundred years to arrive at our present position ; nor will the time be wasted if 
we glance in detail at some of their writings on this subject. 
History OF THE SUBJECT. 
The mildew of wheat has, as a blight, probably been known from remote 
antiquity. The Romans held a festival on April 25th—the Robigalia, or Rubi- 
galia—with the object of protecting their fields from mildew. The sacrifices 
offered on this occasion consisted of the entrails of a dog and a sheep, accom- 
panied with frankincense and wine.* The fungoid nature of the mildew was not 
known until the latter half of the last century, for Tull,} writing in 1733, attri- 
butes it to the attacks of small insects ‘‘ brought (some think) by the east wind,” 
which feed upon the wheat, leaving their excreta as black spots upon the straw, 
‘tas is shown by the microscope!” Felice Fontana,{ some thirty years later, 
published an account of the fungus, with figures. Persoon,§ in 1797, gave it the 
name it still bears (Puccinia graminis), and also figured it, as did Sowerby,|| in 
1799, under the name of Uredo frumenti. 
The first mention of the subject immediately under consideration is by Mar- 
shall, who, writing in 1781, says :— 
“Tt has long been considered as one of the first or vulgar errors among husbandmen that the 
barberry plant has a pernicious quality (or rather a mysterious power) of blighting the wheat 
which grows near it. 
“‘This idea, whether it be erroneous or founded on fact, is nowhere more strongly rooted 
than among the Norfolk farmers; one of them mentioning, with a a serious countenance, an in- 
stance of this malady I very fashionably laughed at him. He, however. stood firm, and per- 
sisted in his being in the right, intimating that, so far from being led from the cause to the effect, 
he was, in the reverse, led from the effect to the cause ; for, observing a stripe of blasted wheat 
across his close, he traced it back to the hedge, thinking there to have found the enemy ; but being 
disappointed, he crossed the lane into a garden on the opposite side of it, where he found a large 
barberry bush in the direction in which he had looked for it. The mischief, according to his 
description, stretched away frum this point across the field of wheat, growing broader and fainter 
(like the tail ofa comet) the farther it proceeded from its source. The effect was carried toa 
greater distance than he had ever observed it before, owing, as he believed, to an opening in the 
orchard behind it to the south-west, forming a gut or channel for the wind. 
* 
‘* Being desirous of ascertaining the fact, be it what it may, I have enquired further among 
* Smith, Swzaller Dictionary Greek and Roman Antiqutties, sth edit., 1863, p. 322. 
+ Jethro Tull, Horse Howeimg Husbandry, 3rd edit., 1751, p- 151-2. 
t Felice Fontana, Osservazioni sopra la Ruggine del Grano, Lucca, 1767. 
§ Persoon, Textamen Dispos. Method. Fungorum, 1797; P+ 39) t- iii., f. 3. 
ll Sowerby, English Fungi, vol. ii., 1799, t. 140. 
J Marshall, Ruval Economy of Norfolk, 2nd edit., London, 1795, vol. ii., p. 19. 
