1337] 



F A R M E R S' REGISTER. 



233 



lias, moreover, conducted liis experinieiils entirely 

 imlepcnileiit ol" any sii^ixeslions, and the wliole 

 construciion ol' his machine diliers entirely Irom 

 J)nven|iort"?. 



Ti>e small machine which was shown to iis |ire- 

 scntod literally a stupendous operation ; apparent- 

 ly at perl'eci rest I'roni its inconceivable velocity, it 

 produced a hinn which was almost dealiiinij. fie 

 has hiiherto heen unable to [)rocure in models ot' 

 any size a rate of revolution cNcecdinir six hun- 

 dred per minute ; but he lately has made a very 

 imponant discovery, which, beinu applied to the 

 model we sjaw, has run its speed Irom six hundred 

 up to the astonishiniT rate of six thousand in a 

 tuuuite. ll" this be true, (which we cannot doubt 

 from Its almost api)allin«r velocit}',) the mairnetic 

 poles, chaniimtj twice in every revolution, must 

 chantje ai the enormous rate of twelve thousand 

 in a minute. This model (thoutfh extremely iin- 

 perlect, havinff been made Ity iiis own hands,) in 

 the opinion of an eminent machinist of this city, 

 will carry a common sized lathe. Want of pecu- 

 niary aiii has prevented Dr. P. from conductuiir 

 the experiment as he wishes, but we hope eome 

 liberal patron will soon be found to take an interest 

 with him, and we stronijly desire to see the full 

 value of the invention first realized in our own 

 city. Dr. Pajje assures us that he has entirely 

 surmounted the objection that a proportionate 

 maiinetic intensity cannot be given to machilies of 

 verv larije dimensions. 



We tbrirot to mention that the maximum speed 

 •of the machine is attained in about 15 seconds. 



From tlie Quarterly Journal of AgriouItUre^ 

 ON SflfUT, canfciSr, axd rust ou mildew 



IN CORN, WlTil THE ALLEGED AND ASCER- 

 TAINED CAUSESj AND MODES OP PUEVEN- 

 TIONi 



[The foilowin* paragraph made part of our intro- 

 'ductory remarks to Mr. Bauer's account of the diseases 

 <of wheat, (p. 278, vol. ii. Far. Reg.) ; and it is here 

 repeated, as equally applicable to the present time, and 

 to the different nomenclature used in the following ar- 

 ticle : 



" Notwithstanding all the labors of agriculturists and 

 of the men of science who have written on the diseases 

 of wheat, there are few subjects more enveloped in ob- 

 scurity, or offering more difficulty to the novice who 

 endeavor? to investigate the Causes of any of the many 

 diseases to which this plant is subject. It is not so 

 much on account of the erroi-s and mistakes of the 

 various writers, (considerable as they doubtless are,) 

 as to the facts they have asserted, that the difficulty has 

 arisen, as to the want of clearness and uniformity in 

 the use of names, and the uncertainty as to what dis- 

 ease is meant by any one particular name. The terms 

 blight, mildew, rust, blast, smut, scab, stud, stunt, have 

 been used either in England or this country, so loosely, 

 that it cannot be known what is meant by either, with- 

 out a very particular description of the symptoms of 

 the disease : and the symptoms are seldom described 

 plainly enough for this end. A great service might be 

 rendered by any person, who, from his acquaintance 

 with the actual diseases, and with what has been pub- 

 lished concerning them, could properly adjust terms 

 and descriptions, and merely srive a clear account of 



Vol. V-30 



I the opinions entertained in England and America, of 

 the causes and remedies of the diseases of wheat, and 

 j how fill those of the one country are identical with 

 j tliosc of the other. This would enable us at least to 

 profit by the knowledge already existing, but which is 

 sealed up from most persons liy the improper use of 

 names, either by the writer or read(M-— and doubts are 

 thus created, even as to the terms that are properly ap- 

 plied. But far greater benefits might be conferred on 

 agriculture in this respect, if scientific men would pur- 

 sue the invstigation, and not only define the diseases, 

 but search out their causes, and thence the remedies." 

 Whatever may be the value of the following opini- 

 ons, as to causes and remedies, the writer, like Mr. 

 Bauer, has the rare merit of so clearly describing the 

 diseases of wheat, tnat his readers may always know 

 which is referred to— although his names, in two out of 

 the three cases, are different, and in one of them, en- 

 tirely opposed to terms used by the best informed agri- 

 culturists, and in the best wheat districts of Virginia. 

 If we were to take as authorities the language of ill' 

 informed farmers, and of agricultural writers in gene' 

 ral, we should be involved in inextricable difficulties 

 by their different names for the same diseases of 

 wheat,, and the different applications of the same names. 

 But, even if we confine our comparison to the more 

 recent writers, and those of high authority, the same 

 difficulties and contradictions will be found most re- 

 markable. Thus the disease which, in Virginia, is 

 called smut is called " canker" by the well informed 

 writer of the following article, and "pepper brand or 

 smut balls" hy Mr. Bauer, and "smuf by Sir John 

 Sinclair in the elaborate article in his last (the 5th) 

 editio>n of the Code of Agriculture, republished in the 

 Farmers' Register, (p. 337, vol. iii.) At least, both 

 Sinclair and this writer give the same French name 

 " le carie," for the disease called by the one the smut 

 and by the other the canker. If the French are equal- 

 ly loose and incorrect in applying their terms "carie" 

 and "nielle, charbon," &,c. which is not unlikely, then 

 there is additional cause furnished for uncertainty and 

 error. Again, the disease of wheat and oats which, in 

 Virginia, is commonly called " black-head" and " blast," 

 is certiinly the "smut" of this writer, and the "smut or 

 dust brand" cf Bauer. The " 7-ust" is applied by 

 this writer as is general in Virginia— but the same dis- 

 ease is generally, by other English authorities, called 

 "mildew" and sometimes "blight." Thus it is very 

 doubtful, in regard to any writer, who is not very full 

 and clear in describing the disease he treats of, whe- 

 ther his readers may not totally and yet differently mis- 

 conceive and misapply his instructions. A reformed 

 nomenclature is greatly wanting to agriculture gene- 

 rally — but in no department so much as in regard to 

 the diseases' of wheat! — Ed. Far. Reg.] 



It has recently been said, that the numerous 

 conflictmjT opinions as to the cause of smut, render 

 it impossible to recommend any certain mode of 

 investiijation to dear up this perplexing subject, 

 and, after all that has been written upon it, the 

 cause of the disease in corn may be regarded as 

 one of those secrets of nature with which the hu- 

 man mind will probably never be intrusted. Not 

 one single opinion has been advanced on this sub- 



