127 



so far as to attempt by selection to increase the size of the ear 

 of any particularly variety, and thus, as in the case of 

 the Talavera wheat referred to, unconciously, by frequent repeti- 

 tion fixed it. In 1858, I investigated this question of the grains 

 differing in relation to their positions in the ear, by planting 

 the grains of ten ears on a plan, showing exactly the situation in 

 the ear of every one pf its grains. In fact the planting formed a 

 diagram of the ear. 



The results were that situation in the ear does not supply any 

 indication of the superior grains. Does it depend upon its size ? 

 So far as I can learn from actual trial, assuredly not. And here 

 I am again unfortunate in Mr. Darwin's reference to this subject, 

 for in his last new book on "Cross and Self-fertilization of 

 plants," chap, ix., page 354, he says : — 



"Loiseleur Deslongchamp (Les Cereales, 1842) was led by 

 his observations to the extraordinary conclusion that the smaller 

 grains of cereals produced as fine plants as the large. This con- 

 clusion, is, however, contradicted by Major Hallett's great success 

 in improving wheat by the selection of the finest grains." 



Now here finest clearly means largest, and this, notwith- 

 standing that I had sent Mr. Darwin a copy of my paper, read at 

 Exeter, in which the following occurs upon this point : — 



"Frequent trials had also been made of the comparative power 

 of large and small grains with uniformly the same result, viz. : 

 That in good grains of the same pedigree, neither mere size nor 

 situation in the ear supplies any indication of the superior grain." 



It also contained the synopsis of the Law of Development, 

 which will be given again in the present paper, and which defines 

 accurately the principles of selection upon which I really do pro- 

 ceed. Of course I am not imputing to Mr. Darwin anything more 

 than mere inadvertence tlirough the pressure of multifiirious 

 subjects, but in the works of so great a writer I cannot see with 

 silent equanimity what I really have done ascribed to another, 

 while I am credited instead Avith acting upon a principle in which 

 I have no reason to believe at all. 



