LITERATURE ON BUNT OF WHEAT. . 3 
Camerarius (73) quotes one Merodanus as follows: 
In the year 1550 the Gauls first raised wheat which they called roratum or meilitum 
(honeydew) referring to the odor when the head is green: but when mature there was 
nothing but a black, foetid dusi. 
Hieronymus Bock (47, p. 665-666), who lived between 1498 and 
1554, described bunt, but spoke of it as something already well 
known. Camerarius shows that the question had been raised in 
his dav whether the causes of bunt were internal or external. He 
makes it clear that he regards bunt as being essentially different 
from the loose smuts of wheats. oats, and barley. It had occurred 
to him that the smuts might be fungi because they produced a 
black powder like the Lycoperdons. He finally abandoned this 
theory because he was unable to find with the microscope any such 
fungous threads as had been described for Mucor by Malpighi. 
According to Richard Remnant (321), bunt had become a source 
of serious loss in England prior to 1637. He mentions having 
experimented with certain steeps as bunt preventives, but with- 
holds any information as to their ingredients until satisfied as to 
their value. This is the earliest record cf combating bunt by seed 
treatment that the writers have discovered. 
The subject of smuts, in general, occupies considerable space in 
the agricultural and so-called scientific Journals of the eighteenth 
century, but little of this was available to the writers, since it could 
not be found in the principal libraries of the United States. Enough 
of this early literature has been examined, however, to show the 
trend of thought for that period as to causes and means of preven- 
tion. It can be said that the ideas on the subject. particularly in 
the first half of the century. were largely empirical and charged with 
an admixture of superstition. 
Several smuts were found listed by Dr. Caspar Bauhin (36), in 
Phytopinax, among which was Ustilago secalina (Tilletia secalina). 
Three anonymous articles, probably by the same author, two of 
which are mentioned in Benevenuti’s (42) notes, appeared in the 
Sammiung von Nature und Medicin: Breslau (1, 2, 3). A few 
abstracts from these articles follow: 
A large amount of ‘ brand” was iound in the wheat in the year 1717; also some in 
the rye but not so much, rye being less subject to the trouble. The brand occurred 
mostly under certain conditions: (1) In low damp soil. (2) When the plants came 
up too slowly. (3) Where the soil had become contaminated. (4) When planted 
in double light, i. e., “Wenn friih oder Abends Sonn und Mond zugleich am Himmel 
zu sehen.”’ (5) When new seed was planted damp. (6) In case of injurious dew. 
He relates that honeydew and damp July weather had a bad 
influence. He quotes an unnamed writer to the effect that the 
sowing of damp new wheat, i. e., new wheat not fully cured, favors 
the production of brand and that it is safest to sow seed from the 
previous vear, but that this should be held over, unthreshed, 
until just before sowing. The same writer informs us that many 
means of prevention were practiced, mostly superstitions, and 
cites a few, such as mixing powdered lime with the seed, sowing in 
the dark of the mvon ‘in God's name,” and soaking the seed. in 
salt water for 24 hours. To prevent smut in barley, running the 
seed through burning straw (flaming) before sowing was sometimes 
practiced. He notes that smut can be produced expermentally 
i the window of a room as well as in the open field. He had observed 
ENT oe nll, OR EADS I, ee eee pM 
(he WY ce 
_~ 
~ 
. mt Tice) cana <4 
ee ae ee ee 
——. = EE eeweerweeeEi da eee 8 
