322 



Ts wheat convtrtihle info Cheat ? 



OL. 



II 



To the Editor of the Fai nicrs' Cabinet. 

 The following essay was read before the 

 New Garden Lyceum, on the 24th of 'id mo. 

 last, and immediately prepared for liieCabineb 

 but was mislaid. Ifitis thought worth publish- 

 ing, after so able aiefutalion from W. D., in 

 the last Cabinet, [No. 3:t] please to dispose of 

 it accordinijly. 



Ob§erver— Wo. 14. 



" And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, 

 and herb, yielding seed, and the fruit-tree, yielding 

 fruit, after his kind, whose seed is in itself, and it 

 was so !" 



IS WHEAT COYERTIELE INTO CHEAT ] 



The affirmative of the question lias long 

 been maintained, with a zeal, and confidence, 

 which could hardly proceed from any thing 

 short of a belief in its correctness. It is on 

 this account I have deemed it vv'orthy ofa dis- 

 passionate answer. 



A belief in the convertahility ofa number 

 ,of the grasses, is as old ns jt U prevalent. It 

 was, long ago, a common opinion among the 

 peasantry of Europe, and, is one of the many 

 legacies, bequeathed to their descendants on 

 thts side of the Atlantic. The celebrated 

 Linnaeus deemed it not unworthy of his pen, 

 to endeavor to disabuse the people, qi^ his 

 day, by a learned essay, on the subject, which 

 was published in the Amo'naiites AciiJemirtp, 

 vol. V. Formerly, many of the graminaceaus 

 plants were thought to be convertible intq 

 each other, in a certain progressive order. — 

 Thus the wheat was supposed to be convert- 

 ed into rye — rye into barley — barley into 

 rye-gr^ss~ rye-grass into cheat — and cheat 

 into cats. In these more enlightened times, 

 and, especially, in th\s free rnuyrtri/, where 

 belief is too often untrammelled, even by rea- 

 POH, we have found a shorter road to folly, by 

 allowing the wheat to pass directly to cheat 



Theadvocates of this doctrine unfortunate- 

 ly, stand directly opposed to the creative 

 mandate, " let the earth bring forth grass, 

 yielding .«eed after his kind, whose seed is 

 in itself upon the earth." The man who 

 reads his Bible, and believes what he reads, 

 can hardly entertain such an opinion. — 

 The Bible" argument is against him. To be- 

 lieve that any plantcan bring forth seed after 

 another Ainrf than its own, appears to be a 

 oalpable absurdity. 



Such a doctrine is no less repugnant to the 

 " laws of nature," as they are deduced from 

 the most extensive observations in Botanical 

 HcicHce. Fjvery species of plant, is found, to 

 "yield seed after his kind.'* A species might, 

 irideed, be defined, " « plant it>hose seed is 

 in iiselfy Plants of some spocies, under 

 the influence of local circum.stances, such as, 

 difference ofeoii, and of climate, present va- 



rious appearances which are called varieties. 

 Thus, we have many varieties of wheat — of 

 corn — of potatoes — of apples &c., yet all 

 those varieties belong to the same species, 

 "whose seed is in itself" — theij mix with 

 each other. Oi> the contrary, jlo two species 

 can be made to intermix, or propagate to- 

 gether. This is a determinate "law of na- 

 ture" — the best available distinction between 

 species and varieties. Now wheat is only 

 one ofa number of species, which constitute 

 a genus, (Triticum) each po.ssessing determi- 

 nate characters. The different species 'of 

 this genus do never mix — the varieties of any 

 one species do. The same remarlvs will ap- 

 ply to rye, barley, rye-grass, cheat, and oats; 

 they all belong to seperate genera. If spe- 

 cies, composing the same genus, and having 

 a close family resemblance, do not mix, 

 much less can \Ye expect those of different 

 generate do so. 



Our fields aftbrd .several species of cheat- 

 grass, very near a kin to each other, yet only 

 one of them is pernicious among grain. 



The transformation, in question, is not so 

 much a inixing of species, as an alleged alte- 

 ration in the plant — a radical change, from 

 the nature of wheat, to tliatof cheat. Butas 

 such change, has not been noticed to occur 

 in plants generally, it is illogical to suppose 

 that it can take place in any. If such vaga- 

 ries dn take place with some, they rnay with 

 all. If o«e IS thus permitted to contemn the 

 creative mandate, with impunity, neither 

 will othcr.s obey. The vegetable world 

 would soon run into the wildest confusion. — : 

 Agriculture woulc] become the most precari- 

 ous of employments. Our crops might, at 

 any time, be metamorphosed into a forest ot 

 oaks. The stately lord of the forest become 

 a mushroom. Even, 



. — •' that tub'roup root, 



Which, in their clay-built cells, the hardy sons 



Of Erin hiess"- — 



might spring up, the far-famed vpas, 

 and with one pestiferous breath, annihilate 

 the vital existence of a world. Happily, tlie 

 " laws of nature," which the Eternal Fiat has 

 established, for the government of our world, 

 v^ill not permit any such disorders in the 

 vegetable kingdom. 



The disciples of this doctrine o? Iransub- 

 stanliation, do notattompt to sustain it by rea-; 

 soning — they do no" venture an i.ssue, by the 

 "la\vs of nature"— hut, they confidently ap- 

 peal to stubborn facts, which defy all reason, 

 and all law. It may be worth while to ana- 

 lyse some of those facts, and see whether they 

 may not be in conformity, both with reason, 

 and, with the " laws of nature," which govern 

 them. 



I will first examine a y</<'f, stated by G. \V. 

 Featherstonhaugh, a gentleman of high sci^ 



