605 



Experiment on the alleged conversion of the Oat irdo Rye. 

 By Hewett C. Watson, Esq. 



Like Mr. Sidebotham (Phytol. ii. 589), I also tried the experi- 

 ment of Dr. Weissenborn, last year, and without precisely following 

 the instructions set forth. My departure from prescribed rules was 

 on the contrary side from that of Mr. Sidebotham ; the seed being 

 sown earlier than it should have been. Expecting to be from home 

 at the latter end of June, and wishing to have the oats above ground 

 before I left, their seed was sown either a few days earlier or a few 

 days later (I forget which) than the first of .Tune. 



It will be remembered that the summer was unusually wet and 

 cold, and in consequence the young plants were kept in that state of 

 constant green growth which our corn-fields usually show during a 

 showery May. Many of the plants grew so rapidly that I was com- 

 pelled to cut down some of their shoots repeatedly, as the only means 

 of preventing them from throwing up culms, and, by flowering in the 

 autumn, completely destroying the experiment. Out of two hundred 

 plants, scarcely a score survived the winter. These came into flower 

 about Midsummer (before and after) of this year. Every one of them 

 was a genuine Avena sativa. 



Tn accordance with the editorial comment upon Mr. Sidebotham's 

 experiment, mine also may be objected against, because not literally 

 in accordance with the instructions set forth by Weissenborn. Grant- 

 ed. But, even though we should literally follow the prescribed rules, 

 both as to date of sowing and times of cutting down, the variations of 

 seasons would still make the experiments differ. 



Plants raised from seeds sown at Midsummer, in 1845 and 1846, 

 would have been quite in a different state of growth and luxuriance 

 in the August month of the respective years. During the earlier part 

 of this year of 1846, various garden operations were necessarily per- 

 formed a month earlier than last year, reckoning by dates, in order 

 the better to accommodate them to the season. 



Though very little disposed to put faith in Dr. Weissenborn's ex- 

 periments, I was thrown upon making the trial so far, by the reply of 

 a gentleman to whom I had spoken in slighting terms of the alleged 

 results. His reply was, that the alleged result of one experiment 

 could be refuted only by that of another and similarly conducted ex- 

 periment. Such a reply is sound argument in general. Neverthe- 

 less, there must be some practical limit to the suspension of judgment 

 in such cases. If there were no limit practically allowable, we 

 Vol. ir. 4 f . 



