THE WILD WHEAT OF PALESTINE 297 



question whether the failure with einkorn was not also 

 caused by a faulty technique. We may remark in this 

 connection that, as Doctor Trabut observed,^^ no one 

 has ever succeeded in crossing the two varieties of Anagal- 

 lis arvensis, cwrulea and phcenicia, although the only 

 difference between the two is that the former has blue 

 and the latter pink flowers. But we can not on this 

 account class them as distinct species. 



" In so far, therefore, as the lack of sexual aflBnity 

 between two related forms justifies us in recognizing 

 in them two distinct species, Triticum monococcum must 

 be considered as standing alone, and it cannot be regarded 

 as the progenitor of the cultivated wheats. 



" From the historical point of view, also, we may re- 

 ject einkorn as the progenitor of wheat. Its cultivation 

 can not have gone back to very ancient times, since the 

 cultivated form differs so little from the wild one. The 

 only evidence that we possess of any antiquity is that 

 Schliemann discovered it in his celebrated excavations of 

 ancient Troy, showing that it was cultivated there. ■'^ But 

 the other cultivated wheats are traced back for thousands 

 of years before this. 



" Spelt and emmer, then, are the only two forms re- 

 maining to be considered, but we have no ancient remains 

 of the cultivation of spelt, nor is there any mention of it 

 in literature until toward the beginning of the Christian 

 era. 



12 Bulletin de la Societe Botanique de France, Vol. 68, p. 182. 



13 This evidence for the antiquity of einkorn has turned out to be 

 worthless, for Aaronsohn now reports that the supposed einkorn 

 found at Troy was afterwards identified by Wittmaeh as barley on 

 the basis of a microscopical examination. Vide 0. F. Cook, Wild 

 Wheat in Palestine, Bulletin No. 274, U. S. Department of Agri- 

 culture, 1913, p. 26. A. H. R. B. 



