78 



Wheat tiirnmg into Cheat, or Bromus. 



Vol. IX. 



Wheat turning into Cheat, or Bromus. 



Editor of the Farmers' Cabinet. — The 



enclosed communication was read before 

 the Bart Lyceum more than a year ago. 

 Attention was recalled to it by the appear- 

 ance of an article in the Cabinet some 

 months since, in vindication of the doctrine 

 of wheat turning into cheat; it was there- 

 fore directed to be forwarded to the editor 

 of the Cabinet for publication, if deemed 

 worthy of a place in that valuable periodical. 



VV. L. R. 



Bart, Lancastrr co., Pa., Ninth 

 mo. 17tli, 1844. 



As this is the season of harvest, and the 

 state of the weather does not admit of ga- 

 thering in the grain, I propose devoting a 

 portion of the time to considering an opin- 

 ion so prevalent in the community, that it 

 may well be doubted if a majority of the 

 people do not entertain it — I mean the opin- 

 ion that wheal produces, or is turned into 

 cheat. 



This opinion is so firmly fixed in the 

 minds of many, that it is impossible to 

 change, or even to shake it ; while others 

 as positively deny it, and are quite lis diffi- 

 cult to be convinced. The subject, then, 

 is well worthy of attention, as a question of 

 fact no less than a matter of opinion. If 

 wheat does produce, or turn into cheat, all 

 the trouble, labour and expense, which some 

 farmers are at in procuring clean seed, or 

 in cleaning their own, are altogether useless; 

 if it does not so change, then will such 

 labour and expense be well rewarded. Does 

 it then so change 1 From reason and from 

 observation — for I have not had an opportu- 

 nity to test it by experiment — I have come 

 to the conclusion that it does not so change, 

 and that there is no good reason for believ- 

 ing that it does. My reasons follow : 



If cheat be not regularly produced from 

 its own seed alone, it must be a chance pro- 

 duction, arising from accidental causes; or 

 a hybrid, bred between two ditlerent species, 

 as the mule between the horse and ass. If 

 it be the latter, — which is seldom if ever 

 alleged — the produce must be entirely bar- 

 ren and unproductive, as hybrids never re- 

 produce or breed. I shall liereafter inquire 

 if this holds good in respect to cheat. If it 

 be a chance production, arising from adven- 

 titious causes, it is fair to presume that its 

 appearance and character would vary ac- 

 cording to its causes; it would be tmcer- 

 tain, irregular, and not subject to any spe- 

 cific name; — all which is refuted by our 

 daily observation and experience ; cheat 

 being as regular and well defined as any 

 other plant. 



Wheat and cheat are totally unlike; the 

 stalk, the leaf, the berry, being entirely dif- 

 ferent. The cheat stalk is generally smaller, 

 and of a different colour, as well as stiffer, 

 harder, and rougher, than that of wheat. 

 The wheat leaf is smooth and naked on its 

 upper surface, while that of cheat is rough 

 and thickly set with stiff" bristly hairs. The 

 berry of wheat is borne in a simple spike, — 

 a single head or ear — while the cheat head 

 is divided and subdivided into many parts. 

 It is also destitute of chaff"; but has a single 

 husk, which is inseparable from it, like the 

 interior one of oats. It may also be ob- 

 served, that its whole appearance and habit 

 more resemble oats than wheat; and like 

 the former, its blossom is always concealed 

 within the hnsk, while that of wheat is 

 never so concealed. 



These characteristics of cheat being, as I 

 have already remarked, regular and unvary- 

 ing, wo find that naturalists have classed 

 and described it as a separate and distinct 

 plant, growing fi-om its own seed and repro- 

 ducing its own kind. To our winter wheat 

 they give the name of Triticum Hybernum; 

 while that applied to cheat, or chess, — as 

 some call it — is Bromus Secalinus. Are 

 they mistaken'? Are those who have made 

 nature and her handy work their study and 

 delight, less likely to perceive the truth 

 than others, who from habit and occupation 

 are nnatle to devote much of their time 

 and attention to the subject? I am unwil- 

 ling to believe it; for if so, study and edu- 

 cation are worse than useless — a perfect 

 waste of that precious time which might be 

 much better employed in the common avo- 

 cations of life. 



But there is much more that goes to prove 

 the same thing. Tlie two are never seen 

 growing from the same stalk — the same 

 root or stool never produces both, as evi- 

 dently might be, if we admit the possibility 

 of a change. A man once thought he had 

 found both growing on one stalk; but when 

 it came to be examined, it was found that a 

 branch from a clieat head had become en- 

 tangled among the grains of the wheat and 

 broken off* from its parent stem, without 

 being united to the other. In another case, 

 a person — with whom I was acquainted, by 

 the way — found both growing together, and 

 apparently from the same root. He carried 

 them to a friend, who denied their common 

 origin, and with an air of triumph, exhibited 

 his proof. "But," said he to me, "my friend 

 was wiser than I. He agitated the root in 

 water, and it naturally separated into two, 

 one of which was wheat, and tlie other 

 cheat." I have myself seen hickory and 

 oak, poplar and maple, as well as other dis- 



