ON SMUT IN WHEAT. 



187 



though these plants were all sheltered 

 from the north-east wind, yet there was 

 mildew on ever individual stalk. From 

 this circumstance he denies the supposed 

 connexion or affinity between finiiif. and 

 mildew, or, that the north-east wind (as 

 some have confidently asserted,) is the 

 cause of either. 



The first four experiments were stated 

 to have been made for the purpose of as- 

 certaining whether the smutty powder 

 possesses the power of propagation; and it 

 is argued froni the result that it has; be- 

 cause the diff^erenee ofproportion between 

 the smut in these, and lot No. 6 and 7 

 was too great to have happened by 

 chance, when the corn was all sown in 

 the same day, on the same soil, and un- 

 der similar circumstances. 



No. S, was smutted wiieat dressed with 

 hot lime, and sown after an interval of 

 twenty hours: of this, twenty-seven roots 

 produced 243 ears, six of them only being 

 smutty, and these were distributed on six 

 diflerent roots. 



No. 9, was the same smutted wheat 

 rubbed over with mercurial ointment, 

 and sown twenty-two hours afterwards: 

 of this, ten roots produced 107 ears, of 

 which nine were smutty. 



No. 10, was the same wheat washed in 

 water and soaked twenty-three hours: of 

 this, thirty-three roots produced 275 

 ears, ninety-eight of them being smutty. 



No. 11, was smutted wheat dressed 

 with lime, in the same manner as No. 8, 

 and after an interval of forty-eight hours: 

 of this, twenty-seven roots produced 

 250 ears, and every one of them good. 



No. 12, was smutted wheat soaked 

 fifty-four hours in water; twenty roots 

 produced 200 ears, but sixty-eight of 

 them were smutty. 



No. 13, was dry smut, nineteen roots 

 pioduced 173 ears, of which, nineteen 

 only were smutty, and these were dis- 

 tributed on six roots only. 



No. 14, was clean wheat bruised with 

 a hammer, (as bruising had been some- 

 times thought a cause of smut,) only five 

 seeds vegetated, which produced eighty- 

 one ears, all good corn. 



No. 15, was smutted wheat dressed 



afterwards; eleven roots produced 103 

 ears, and all without smut. 



No. Iti, was the same wheat soaked in 

 urine only, and sown at the same inter- 

 val: twenty roots produced 131 ears, but 

 forty-one of them were smutty. 



No. 17 and No. IS, were smutted 

 wheat, dressed with lime and urine, and 

 sown ; the first at an inleival of three 

 hours, the latter, of six hours: No. 17; 

 had no smut out of 1L4 ears, and No. 18 

 only three smutty ears out of 19S. 



No. 19, was the same smutted wheat, 

 soaked in urine only, for six hours, and 

 there w^ere seventy-one ears smutty, out 



of no. 



No. 20 and No. 21, were wheat of 

 diflerent samples, but equally smutty. 

 Tliese were each soaked for eight hours: 

 No. 20, which was soaked in urine and 

 lime, produced fifty-five ears of good 

 wheat, and no smut; and No. 21, soaked 

 in urine only, produced sixty-three ears 

 of smut, to forty-one good earS. 



No. 22, vvas smutted wheat, dressed 

 with mercurial ointment, and sown at 

 the end of five days; ten roots produced 

 fifty-seven good ears, and four smutty 

 ears. 



No. 23, was the same wheat, soaked in 

 water for the same time; seventy-nine roots 

 produced only fifty-two good ears, and 

 105 ears were smutty. 



No. 24, was the same wheat dressed 

 with lime, and suffered to remain also 

 five days before sowing: the produce from 

 sixteen roots vvas fifty-six ears, of which 

 fifty-five were good, and one blasted, but 

 there was no smut. 



From the result of the seventeen last 

 experiments, it is contended, that dress- 

 ings are useful in obviating the smut in 

 wheat, it being evident, also, that all are 

 not equally useful, since that which vvas 

 washed with water alone, was propor- 

 tionably more productive of smut than 

 that which was dressed with urine ; and 

 that dressed with urine alone, more pro- 

 ductive of smut than that which was 

 dressed with lime. The experiments 

 Nos. 16, 19, and 21, relate to urine alone, 

 and the produce was, in the aggregate, 

 more than two-thirds smutty. It is in- 

 ferred, therefore, that urine alone cannot 



with lime and urine, and sown an hour be of any utility in preventing the infec- 



