On Smut in TVlieat. 51 



These are facts, which introduced themselves in the 

 harvests 1805 and 1806; they are now produced, that 

 every reader, may consider the plant before him, and 

 draw such conclusions as arise out of the premises. 



Another fact may be added, that some grains which 

 tillered, you will find produced stalks with perfect 

 ears of grain, others from the indentical grain, pro- 

 duced smut balls, but in no Instance were grain and 

 smut balls found in the same ear, as stated by some 

 observers. 



I shall conclude this communication, with such re- 

 flections as arise from the circumstances laid before 

 you. 



1st. That imperfect or damaged seed yields a diseased 

 crop, and that under the circumstances last stated, the 

 disease becomes hereditary. It is reasonable to conclude, 

 that part of the seed sown in 1804 was damaged, for it 

 produced a mixture of smut, while all the farms in the 

 neighbourhood were exempted from that disease in the 

 harvest of the next season. 



2d. The disease in the harvest of 1806, from seed of 

 the infected crop of 1805, assumed an hereditary aspect. 

 Wherever the seed from the crop of 1805 was sown, 

 and in those places only, smut appeared in 1806, 



I am aware of the danger of submitting hypothesis, 

 in place of facts, for consideration. It may neverthe- 

 less be proper in the present case : for as every act of 

 the judgment is right or wrong, true or false, the hypo- 

 thesis if wrong, may invite that sohd information, which 

 otherwise would have been excluded from the public 

 eve. 



