Jo. 17. 



Is Tvheai, converfiblc'inio Cheat. 



323 



entific attainments, and long accustomed to 

 study the "laws of nature," and, to analyse 

 its phenomena. And, what did he observe? 

 u plant oj cheat, draionfrom the earth, at 

 harvest time, with the skin of a grain of 

 wheat, (or cheat .') entangled among its 

 fibrous roots. This, I believe, is a lair and 

 simple statement of his fact. He, indeed 

 says, that the skin "was attached to the radi- 

 cle, in a situation quite distinct from the late- 

 ral roots" — and, that on "applying- the mi- 

 croscope, he found it had been a kernel of 

 wheat, and nothing else.'''' Tiie fact ie, 

 moreover, fortified by the concurrent opinion 

 of the venerable Madison, and ushered forth 

 to the world, under the auspices of " The 

 Monthly American Journal of Geology, and 

 the Natural Science."* All this is, by no 

 means conclusive, to my mmd. There is room 

 to doubt, whether the skin of agrain of wheat, 

 which had lain so many months in the ground 

 could be positively identified, and distin- 

 guished from that of cheat, — even by meana 

 olthe microscope, — especially, without a com- 

 parison of the two, whicli does not appear to 

 have been made. Again, the conne.xiou be- 

 tween the radicle and the seed, would proba- 

 bly cease, with the destruction of the kernel, 

 and could not be depended on to draw the 

 skin out of the ground. But, lean readily 

 conceive, that a radicle, or little root, of the 

 plant, may have so penetrated the skin of its 

 own seed, or some other one, as to aid in re- 

 moving it iroin the earth, and present all the 

 appearances noted. An opinion, if well 

 Ibunded, relating to an occurrence so com- 

 mon as the conversion of wheat is said to be, 

 ought to find more conclusive evidence for its 

 support. Moreover, the writer admits that 

 his "opinions, as to the immutability of wheat, 

 leere long ago shaken,'" he does not believe, 

 "that the heads- of clieat, or chess, wJiich are 

 often found in wheat fields, take their origin 

 from seeds, like those thcij bear.'''' — And, 

 '■ having had a liberal share of agricultural 

 etmtrovcrsy,''^ {on this subject?) he seems to 

 have hastily seized upon tliis fact, as a kind 

 o\^ back handed missiie, in his retreat from 

 the field. This should be remembered. 



Another J'flcf. Cabinet, vol. ii. p. 201. R. 

 C McFarlan seems to admit, that cheat will 

 "yiold seed after its kind," as he took some 

 Dains to have clean seed. Yet his ground 

 iiad probably become foul, and might have re- 

 ceived the seeds of cheat from •' the stable 

 and barnyard." The probability of this is 

 greatly increased, by the fact that he, after- 

 wards, cut his crop of cheat, "about the mid- 

 dle of June, and it made excellent hay." I 

 isay the probability is increased, because cheat, 

 ©f strong growth wiiich stands till the "mid- 

 -Jle of itme," will yield ripe eeed^and, if he 



* See that work p. 



was so deficient in good husbandry, as to 

 allow sucli a quantity of pernicious seeds to 

 go to the stable and barnyard, that year, I 

 cannot suppose he had been very nice, in ex- 

 eluding them from the manure, which had 

 been applied to his ill-fated crop. A farmer 

 who would suffer the seed of si.x bushels sow- 

 ing of cheat, to mingle with his manure, 

 need not be surprised — nor should he com- 

 plain, if his crops of wheat should turn to 

 cheat, for half a century to come, especially 

 when injured by the fly or winter. 



A th'ird fact, by a Virginia correspondent, 

 is found on the same page of the Cabinet. 

 [The skinless oats, which fell to the ground, 

 I and came up in the fall, he says, " he expect- 

 ed would perish in the winter," and I have 

 no doubt that it did so perish. Yet, we are 

 told that "in the spring, they put forth and 

 grew finely, and when the heads came out 

 not a single grain could be found, but as fine 

 and flourishing cheat as I have ever e-xarn- 

 ined." He anticipates the objection, that the 

 ground contains seeds of the cheat, for he 

 says "no grain had been sowed within a 

 quarter of a mile, or housed or stacked near 

 it for forty years." It must be remarked that 

 this statement implies an admission that if ' 

 there could have been cheat conveyed into 

 the garden the plants might have originated 

 in that way ; and also, that the grain did con- 

 tain cheat. Now, it is probuble, that grain 

 had been "sowed, and housed, or stacked" 

 near the barnyard or manure heap, during 

 the specified time ; and, it is equally probable 

 that the "garden" which we are told had 

 been planted " with diflerent kinds of vege- 

 tables for thirty years," must have been often 

 manured, during that time. A far more 

 likely way, surely to introduce cheat intc 

 the garden, than by sov/ingor stacking grai.-i 

 near it. 



So much for the/tfcfs. Whether ray ex- 

 planations are ade<]uate, the reader must de- 

 termine. I consider them sufficient. I 

 would, however, prefer to acknowledge my 

 ignorance, than to annul the "laws of nature.," 

 by admitting the mutability of wheat, on the 

 one hand — or, to give countenance to the in- 

 fidel docirmQ 01 equivocal generation on the 

 ©ther. If we can doubt the presence of a 

 pre-existing germ, where a piattt of cheat 

 springs up, we may entertain the same doubts 

 respecting asexy other being, ef whatever 

 kind. The same fortuitous chance which 

 could produce a plant, could also produce a 

 man, witliout the necessity of recurring loa 

 " Great First Cause." And, if plants and 

 animals can thus spring up, spontaneously, 

 trora nothing, so cin all the innumerous 

 worlds, which people the infinity of space— 

 ajj i.']ea too revolting for any serious and con- 

 templative raind to entertain for a momeat,- 



