Dec. 20. 1 883 J 



NA TURE 



'73 



spoken at the Polynesian settlements of Mel and Fi), 

 while Melanesian idioms prevail elsewhere. But from 

 the examples adduced, and especially from such agglutin- 

 ating forms as mitaitgu, iiii/diiia, mitana = my, your, his, 

 eye {mdta - eye), it is obvious that the Efatese in ques- 

 tion is not an Oceanic (Malayo-Polynesian) dialect at all, 

 but a strictly Melanesian tongue affected by Oceanic in- 

 fluences. The language on which the author mainly 

 relies is consequently useless as a point of comparison 

 between the Semitic and Malayo-Polynesian families. 



The actual relation between these two families is again 

 stated to be "that of an ancient to a modern language, 

 as Latin to French, Saxon to English. This implies that 

 we shall find the Oceanic, as compared with the Semitic, 

 characterised by phonetic and grammatical decay, &c." 

 Doubtless there is in Oceanic, as in all linguistic groups, 

 abundant evidence of decay. But, as compared with the 

 Semitic, it must be regarded not as a modern, but as an 

 almost infantile, form of speech. Semitic stands in some 

 respects on a level w ith, if not even on a higher footing than, 

 Aryan itself, as regards its grammatical evolution, whereas 

 in Malayo-Polynesian the verb is not yet clearly differen- 

 tiated from the noun. Thus even in Samoan most of the 

 so-called verbs are merely nouns modified by detached 

 relational particles, and, like the adjectives, forming re- 

 duplicate plurals. Compare iwfo — to sit, pi. iio/w/o, 

 with tele = great, pi. ietele. This instance alone will 

 satisfy the ordinary linguistic student of the prodigious 

 gulf that separates the Oceanic from the Semitic with its 

 highly complicated system of verbol conjugation. 



And how does the writer propose to bridge over this 

 gulf ? Mainly by a string of words taken without method 

 from any given Oceanic language, and compared with 

 any member of the Semitic group to which it may happen 

 to bear some faint resemblance in sound if not in sense. 

 No attempt is of course made to establish some general 

 preliminary system of "lautverschiebung," without which 

 all such comparisons are absolutely destitute of any scien- 

 tific value. They resolve themselves mainly into ono- 

 matopoeic forms, the common property of all articulate 

 speech, or into some of those numerous etymoiogitsl 

 curiosities which can always be found by the diligent 

 seeker, but which are such terrible pitfalls for the unwary. 



Most of the Hebrew terms themselves are moreover 

 taken either in secondary and later forms, or else in 

 secondary and later meanings, forms and meanings which 

 are consequently useless for the purpose of comparison 

 between the organic Semitic and Oceanic languages. 

 Thus the Efate mitakit = to fear, is compared with the 

 Hebrew thig. But this Jag, or rather daag (J^S^, Jer. xvii. 

 8), is a comparatively modern form of an older ddab 

 (SN'l), whicli primarily means to melt, and which neither 

 in sense nor sound shows any further resemblance with 

 the Melanesian mitaku. This is only one instance from 

 among many. The further back these supposed paral- 

 lelisms are traced, the more divergent become the lines, 

 until at last they fade away into parabolic curves, and 

 leave the gulf between these linguistic systems more im- 

 passable than ever. 



Mr. Macdonald does not expressly mention the " lost 

 tribes." But it is on these flimsy grounds that, in a 

 slightly incoherent concluding sentence, he claims to have 

 rediscovered in the South Seas a lost Semitic people, 

 " their language full-orbed and in all its living vigour' ! 



A. H. Keane 



AMERICAN WHEAT-' 



T^HIS is a pamphlet issued by the Chemical Division 



■*• of the Department of Agriculture, U.S., and is 



further specified as Bulletin No. i. It may be described 



• " An Investigation of the Cnmpo.sition of American Wheat anti Corn." 

 By Chaford Richardson, Assistant Chemist. (Washington Printing Office, 



as an elaborate monograph upon the composition of 

 American wheat, and the subject is handled with great 

 thoroughness, although the value of the result obtained 

 falls considerably short of being startling. It is a 

 speci.iien of painstaking analytical work which may form 

 the basis for generalis .tions of value in the hands of 

 able agriculturists and statisticians. 



The variation in the composition of the wheat grain 

 itself as aft'ected by climate is rendered evident, and a 

 comparison is instituted between the composition of 

 European, American, Egyptian, and Au-tralian wheats. 

 The author in the first place produces elaborate tables of 

 analysis, showing the composition of numerous varieties 

 of wheat. Secondly, he considers the composition of the 

 typical or average wheat of each of the .American States. 

 Lastly, he compares American wheats with those pro- 

 duced in other quarters of the globe. Among this mass 

 of analyses it is difficult to arrive at conclusions, and 

 there is some danger of falling into error. Mr. Clifford 

 Richardson finds that American wheats are drier than 

 European wheats in the proportion of lo'zy to 14 per cent, 

 of moisture. The percentage of dry matter is conse- 

 quently much higher, and the grain is proportionately 

 more valuable. The carbohydrates average 72 per cent, 

 instead of 68 per cent, as in the case of English wheat 

 for example. The amount of fibre is also less in American 

 wheats. The ash constituents are most abundant in 

 wheat from newly cultivated tracts, and on old worn out 

 lands both the ash constituents' and nitrogen are con- 

 sidered to have diminished. 



American wheat is, however, deficient in albuminoids to 

 a degree which appears to disconcert Mr. Richardson 

 more than we think it need. In American wheat we 

 evidently have a small gram, specially free from fibre 

 (bran), peculiarly dry, very rich in carbohydrates and oil, 

 but deficient in albuminoids. European wheats some- 

 times contain I9'5 per cent, of albuminoids, and ordinarily 

 13 per cent. American wheats contain upon an average 

 II '95 per cent, of albuminoids, but in Oregon and on the 

 Pacific coasts only S'6 per cent. Mr. Richardson seems to 

 overrate the importance of this fact. He appears to be in 

 doubt as to the true importance of the albuminoids when he 

 says, "Thealbuminoids are regarded, (?«(//>v^rt^/v rightly, 

 as the most valuable part of the grain." He might, how- 

 ever, have been led by his investigations to doubt how 

 far a high percentage of albuminoids is the best indica- 

 tion of quality in wheat. First, Australian and Egyptian 

 wheats are both somewhat deficient in albuminoids, and 

 are yet known to be remarkably fine. He also notices 

 that while Oregon and Californian wheats contain com- 

 paratively low amounts of albuminoids, the grains are 

 large and handsome. He further points out that the pro- 

 portion of albuminoids in spring wheats is higher than in 

 winter wheats, although he fails to notice that all wheat- 

 growers know that winter wheat is better than spring 

 wheat. Having concluded that American wheat is at 

 fault in this particular, he endeavours .to explain why 

 such is the case with a view to remedying the defect. So 

 far from being a fault, the richness of American wheats 

 in starch, and the comparatively smaller proportion of 

 glutin, appears to us as indicative of its high quality. 

 "Tail" corn contains more glutin than "head" corn, 

 and badly matured grains are usually rich in this 

 important constituent. A little consideration as to the 

 constitution of a grain of wheat will show that the glutin is 

 not the best criterion of value. The outside layers of the 

 grain contain the glutin, and then honeycomb cells in- 

 close the starchy interior. This outer portion of the 

 kernel is the first to ripen while growth still continues 

 along the axis and in the centre. The fully matured 

 grain, in fact, becomes like a well-packed trunk, thoroughly 

 stuffed out, and this with starch grains. It we are cor- 

 rect in thi= view of the maturing of the grain, the per- 

 centage of glutm must diminish in proportion as starch is 



