121 
to these questions were published,* and from them the following evidence bearing 
upon the question we are considering are selected. 
Isaac King, Esq., Wycombe, Bucks, in answer to the question about the bar- 
berry, says,—‘‘In 1795, a field of about 20 acres had two large barberry bushes 
growing within 20 yards of it. These appeared to ke the focus of destruction to 
several acres; in front, close to the hedge, the wheat was as black as ink, and 
further off it was affected to a less degree . . . Inshort, I had 15 acres very 
good, and 5 of very little value. You may conclude the barberries were destroyed.” 
Mr. S. Johnson,+ Thurning, Norfolk, says,—‘‘ My observations on the bar- 
berry have been for several years. I have seen the blast from a small stem blown 
on the wheat in one direction upwards of 2 furlongs like smoke from a chimney.” 
Mr. W. Maxey,t Knotting, Bucks, says,—‘‘ When passing a wheat field a few 
years ago on the eve of harvest, I noticed some streaks of a different and darker 
hue across a furlong of wheat from the hedge directly opposite ; at the end of each 
streak was a barberry bush.” 
Mr. James Sheppard,§ Chippendale, Newmarket, says,—‘‘I have never seen 
an instance of wheat growing near a barberry not being injured more or less.” 
It is quite unnecessary to quote any further from Mr, Young’s correspondents 
upon this point. 
Sir Joseph Banks in his paper on ‘* Wheat Mildew,” alluding to the subject 
before us, mentions the belief as being prevalent amongst farmers, but scarcely 
credited by botanists, and points out the resemblance the yellow fungus on bar- 
berry has to rust, although it is larger. He says :—||‘‘ls it not more than possible 
that the parasitic fungus of the barberry and that of wheat are one and the same 
species, and that the seed is transferred from the barberry to the corn?” 
This is precisely what Professor De Bary did sixty years afterwards, when he 
actually produced the wheat mildew from the barberry fungus. It must be re- 
membered that, although these statements were made half a century ago, this in 
no way affects their veracity ; but it may be well to quote a more recent instance 
in which the deleterious influence of the barberry is shown. M. Gabriel Rivet, 
writing in 1869, alluded to the fact that the Paris and Lyons Railway Company 
planted a barberry hedge beside theirline. The neighbouring proprietors drew up 
petitions, and asked the company to remove the hedge. The company made trials 
by cutting a part of it down to see if it were really as hurtful as was alleged, and 
found the mildew so much diminished thereby that they had the whole hedge 
removed. 
On July 17th, 1882, I examined a field of wheat at Flitcham, Norfolk, in the 
hedge of which were three barberry bushes. Although they had been cut down a 
fortnight previously, there was no difficulty in finding the place where each had 
* A. Young, Annals of Agriculture, vol. xliii., 1805, p. 457- 
+ Loc. cit., p. 469. 
t Loc. cit., p. 505. 
§ Loc, cit., p. 510. 
|| Banks, in Axnals of Agriculture, vol. xliii., p. 521. 
| Rivet, in Bulletin de la Société Botanigue, vol. xvi., p. 331—334- lnfluence de plantations 
@epine-vinette sur la developpement de la rouille des céréale. 
