j^gilops of the South of France. 
175 
before, ami almost all of them (ontained 2 fertile flowers, and 
thus yielded 2 grains. Tlie awns of the glume were always 2 in 
number, but tlie abortion of one was in every case carried further 
than previously, and was often complete. The grains were less 
compact, less concave, less hairy at their extremity. The ears, 
when ripe, separated less easily from the axis, and the grains were 
much more floury than in former years. A third year produced 
plants similar to those of the year before, but more perfect. They 
had scarcely any sterile spikelets, each of which yielded 2 and 
sometimes 3 grains, more developed, less concave, and less hairy. 
The next, being the 4th year, produced no notable change. A 
year later the stems attained the height of a yard ; the grains were 
sufficiently developed to separate the valves of the floret and to 
be wholly exposed when ripe. The mature ears separated less 
easily from the stems. 
The year following all the spikelets were fertile, although the 
ears separated with ease. 
The next year the ears did not break off easily ; all the 
spikelets were fertile, and occasionally enclosed 3 well developed 
grains. It is clear that a true Triticum was then obtained, for a 
cultivation in the open fields for 4 successive years did not cause 
any change in its form, and it yielded produce similar to that of 
the other corn of the country. 
[The foregoing observations show that ovata, L., is 
capable of being extremely modified under certain circum- 
stances. Whilst its floral envelopes lose their width and some 
of their awns, and thus become like those of Triticum, their stems, 
leaves, and ears become more and more developed, and at length 
acquire all tlie characters of wheat. The necessary inference is 
that some, if not all, cultivated Tritica are peculiar forms of 
j^fjilops, and ought to be regarded as races of this species. 
If this be admitted, it is easy to reconcile the accounts given 
of the origin of wheat. It has been said both in ancient and in 
modern times that wheat was wild in Babylonia, Persia, and 
Sicily. In all these countries y3^c/ilops is common, and it is not 
surprising that some of its species may have accidentally acquired 
a wheat-like form, and have been afterwards improved and pro- 
pagated by cultivation. Thus to M. Esprit Fabre is due the 
merit of having ascertained the true origin of cultivated wheat. 
Its origin had, it is true, been suspected and vaguely pointed out 
by several persons ; but the honour of a discovery is really due 
not to the authors of a surmise, but to him who has established 
the fact by observation, experiment, or reasoning, leaving no 
room for further doubt. — Note by Professor Dunal.] 
