which are Parafit'iQS of the Wheat. 1 23 



for tlie fame cifcumftances would be favourable to the prod ucl ion 

 of both, although \vc have reafon to be thankful that the latter 

 is much the moft common of the two. I doubt not but thefe gen- 

 tlemen will readily excufe my diffent from their fentiments in this 

 inftance ; and fhould future examination prove me in the wrong, I 

 iTiall with pleafure retra<St. In fubjefls not thoroughly difcufTed and 

 undcrflood, the collifion of opinions contributes very much to bring 

 hidden truths to light. 



In the year 1797 the wheat fufFered much by the blight, or tnildew 

 as our farmers more commonly call it, by far the worft enemy of that 

 grain; and I had frequent opportunities of examining into the caufe 

 of it. The ears that were injured by it were to be diftinguifhed at a 

 confiderable diftancc by their blacknefs ; and when brought clofe to 

 the eye, they appeared as if foot, or fome other fmutty powder, had 

 been ftrewed over them. Under a common lens (for at that time I had 

 no other) the chafFappeared covered with fmall black dots irregularly 

 fcattered over it, and widely different from the appearance of Uredo 

 Frumenti upon the fame part, which is very accurately reprefented in 

 Mr. Sowcrby's figure. Whenever this appearance feizcs an ear, it 

 invariably occafions the grain to flirink fo much as to be fit for no- 

 thing but to feed hogs or poultry. I do not recollect making any 

 obfervations upon the (late of the ftraw; but I have a memorandum, 

 made in a field from which I took many ears, which fays that the 

 ftraw of the mildewed wheat in that field was clean : and if mv 

 memory does not fail me, the mildew itfelf was always confined to 

 the car; though fomctimes the ftraw might be afFe6led, as I hinted 

 above, by Uredo Frumenti at the fame time. Some farmers, whom I 

 have confulted, have told me that the ftraw is always injured; but 

 others have confirmed my own cbfervation in the field above men- 

 tioned, that it is not invariably fo. I fliould obferve, that the foliage 



R 2 of 



