1850. 



THE GENESEE FARMER. 



207 



my benighted understanding, by informing me what 

 relation all this parade of words of " a skipper in a 

 cheese making the cheese," be., has to anything 

 fairly deducible from the premises laid (lown in my 

 communication ? Allow me to request that you will 

 again, more carefully, read that part of my commu- 

 nication relating to this matter, on page 84, in your 

 April number, and then I think you will not again 

 be so mistaken as to accuse me of the absurdity of 

 asserting, or even supposing, that the egg or maggot 

 of any weevil or "beetle" produced the food on which 

 it subsisted. 



Now, gentlemen, allow me to ask by what means 

 you know that " smut is well known to be a parasitic 

 fungus" ? Did you ever see it as a vegetahle seed, 

 even " through a glass, darkly" 7 Did you ever prop- 

 erly test its vegetative power by planting it with or 

 without wheat ? Have you ever personally known 

 of an instance in uhich a "parasitic fungus" plant 

 grew out of the living matter of another plant or 

 tree ? Or have you not relied on what others, like 

 Henslow, have supposed and conjectured ? If the 

 latter, excuse me for disbelieving the correctness of 

 the authorities. 



Well, gentlemen, I admit that "man (sometimes) 

 feeds on (filthy?) mushrooms ;" but does he eat them 

 raw, as nature made them ? or does he not, like my 

 smut bug, first prepare them for his use ? But be- 

 cause " man feeds on mushrooms, and many insects 

 devour parasitic plants, without being suspected of 

 producing them," is it any, the least possible proof, 

 that no insect prepares a nest for its young, and food 

 for itself and ofTspring, by producing a change in the 

 structure or organization of part of a plant, or tree ? 

 Do not the "oak-gall" insect, the "black-knot" in- 

 sect (of the plum tree,) the honey bee, and many 

 others, " too numerous to mention," by their " opera- 

 tions" produce changes in natural productions, to 

 suit them to their uses and purposes ? Indeed, I 

 think you concede the point in admitting that "the 

 instances are numerous where insects produce re- 

 markable changes," Sac. I ask, for what purpose do 

 they do these things ? For the mere pleasure of 

 doing something remarkable ? Or is it not more 

 " philosophical " to suppose that they do these things 

 to fit those natural productions for their uses as nests 

 for their young, and food for their offspring and them- 

 selves ? What inference do you draw from the facts 

 admitted by you ? If the same with myself, as I 

 must suppose you do, why not permit my smut bug, 

 which not only feeds on smut, but makes use of it 

 as a nest and food for its offspring, to come in with 

 those which you admit as " producing remarkable 

 changes," kc. "> If, however, my theory is unphi- 

 losophical, it appears to me to be infit:itely 'ess ab- 

 surd than that which teaches that "a single smut 

 ball contains some four millions of sporules, [seeds,] 

 each one of which will doubtless grow and produce 

 other millions, under favorable circumstances"! — 

 Why, gentlemen, have you considered the fearful 

 consequences of such a state of things — -truly " im- 

 portant, if true" ? . At this frightful rate of produc- 

 tion, it appears to me that this terrific "parasitical 

 fungus" would, in a very few years, smut all the 

 wheat in creation ; and totally deprive us of the 

 largest and best portion of our natural bread food ! 

 — nay, it must long ago, inevitably, have produced 

 that destructive result ; not only in regard to wheat, 

 but aslo all the other grains which we use in making 

 bread : for, as I understand the theory, each and 



every kind of those grains is liable to its attacks, in 

 some form or other. No, no, gentlemen ; there is 

 quite too much of the marvelous about this fanciful 

 scheme of nature's mysterious workings in extremely 

 small things ; and 1 can not but be surprised that 

 any sensible, reflecting, practical man, should long 

 believe in the truth of such fantastical freaks of the 

 imagination'; unless, indeed, like him who gave as a 

 reason why he believed the story of Robinson Cru- 

 soe's adventures to be a true relation of facts, he 

 supposes that "if it had not been true, it would not 

 have been printed"! 



To your correspondent Jacob Loop, I will take 

 the liberty of saying that I have been engaged in 

 raising wheat as a staple crop nearly fifty years, and 

 have tried many experiments with my seed wheat, by 

 steeping and linTing it ; sowing very badly shrunk 

 seed, (little heavier than chess ;) and also as good, 

 ripe, large, plump, and beautiful wheat as I think 

 man ever saw : and yet the produce of the latter, as 

 well as of the former, was smutty. I believe that if 

 a grain of wheat has vitality sufficient to enable it to 

 grow, it is probable that it will produce good wheat, 

 though perhaps not as much in quantity as the 

 largest, best, and ripest grain. My shrunk wheat 

 grew ; and I did not discover that there was any 

 matertal diflference in the product of that and the 

 large, plump, and rijje seed. I have never used teed 

 wheat that was not fully, or dead ripe ; believing 

 it to be more certain to grow than that which is 

 unripe. J. H. H. 



It is generally admitted, that leaves are to plants 

 what lungs are to animals. I believe also they serve 

 the purpose of organs of digestion. The analogy 

 then, between plants and animals, would lead us to 

 this conclusion, viz : that whatever mode of treat- 

 ment would be fatal to one, would be fatal also to the 

 other, and vice versa. As the vital energies of an 

 animal are more active than those of a plant, the 

 effect would be more immediate but not more certain. 

 To destroy an animal it is only necessary to destroy 

 the organs of respiration, or to prevent their action ; 

 to destroy a plant, do the same, and let the operation 

 be continued inasmuch as the effect is more slov^f. 



The following would be my method of killing 

 " Iders:" I would allow them to grow till about 

 midsummer, but not later than till after flowering, or 

 till the berries are partially grown. I consider the 

 root to be at this time in its most enfeebled state, as 

 the plant is now nearly done growing. Now let the 

 bushes be mowed close to the ground ; let them dry, 

 and burn them on the spot where they grew. If any 

 new shoots make their appearance, pull them up or 

 cut them off. If any appear on the following spring, 

 repeat the process, but remove them earlier, other- 

 wise the root will acquire strength. I have little 

 experience with elder, but I have some with other 

 plants, and I know that there are few plants to v\Jiich 

 this treatment would not be fatal^if followed up. I 

 am now experimenting on three of the most difficult 

 subjects of the vegetable kingd.)m, and have little 

 doubt of success. For a time the destruction of one 

 shoot seemed only to prepare the way for a score of 

 others ; but they begin to hold up a little, and I expect 

 soon to see them come up loeak and sickly, as the root 

 appears to be exhausting itself. If I succeed, I will 

 give you the result. H. — Down East, July, 1850. 



