254 
£filTOR f S TABLfi. 
sication as Well as by freezing; 2d, Even conceding 
that all the bases found in the ashes of plants should 
have been conveyed to their substance in the form of 
humates, yet the amount of humic acid thus conveyed 
to plants is not sufficient to explain the amount of car¬ 
bon they contain j moreover, 3d, Even all the rain 
which falls oft a certain area, is n’ot sufficient to explain 
the large quantity of carbon they contain. But the 
chief argument against the plants deriving carbon from 
humus is, 4th, That manured and barren ground will 
yield nearly the Same amount of carbon in the plants 
growing thereon. It is, in fine, to be observed, that 
5th, Humus and the carbon of plants must have the 
same origin, as it is impossible that there could have 
existed any primitive humus, for plants must have ex¬ 
isted before humus. Plants receive, therefore, their 
carbon from the atmosphere, where it exists in suffi¬ 
cient quantity to supply all plants with carbon. Dr. 
Mohl says, then, that Liebig has arrived, in these re¬ 
marks, at one or two results correct in the main ; but 
he also shows that most of it (or at least as much as is 
true) has been known to Saussure 40 years ago. As 
the above axiom, however, is one of great importance 
in botanical physiology, Dr. Mohl proceeds to examine 
the doctrine of Liebig in' detail. The argument stated 
under No. 1 proves, he says, nothing, because the com¬ 
bination of humic acid with alkalies, stated under No. 
2, is in direct contradiction to it. These parts of the 
question have been, however, already sifted by Sehlei- 
den j and the utmost which can be conceded is, that 
plants do not obtain all their carbon from the soil. 
Liebig concludes one of his remarks relating to hu¬ 
mus in the following words :— <f As plants grown on an 
acre of unmanured meadow or forest land will assimi¬ 
late an equal amount of carbon to those grown on ma¬ 
nured and cultivated fields,—as, moreover, the former 
soil will not become, by the process of vegetation, 
poorer in humus, but on the contrary, richer; there 
must be a source different from humus or manure, 
whence plants receive their carbon, and this is the 
atmosphere.” This mistaken argument of Liebig (says 
Dr. Mohl), arises out of his confounding the origin of 
carbon, in the whole of vegetation, with that in a sin¬ 
gle plant, as well as on his placing unmanured soil on 
a par with that which is deficient in humus. A plant 
might require a certain amount of humus for its nour¬ 
ishment, and still prepare and yield, by the decay of its 
foliage or herbage, the same quantity, or even more 
than it has absorbed, for the growth of subsequent gen¬ 
erations. 
The next argument of Liebig discussed by Dr. Mohl 
(relating always to the origin of carbon in plants), is 
that in antediluvian times, plants must have existed 
before humus; and so they do now—witness the leca- 
noras and parmelias growing on the perpendicular cliffs 
of granite mountains. This reminds him of the ques¬ 
tion, whether the egg or the hen existed first; and 
being aware of the abuse which has of late been made 
of scientific axioms being derived from mere algebraic 
calculations, he says that all sorts of results may be 
ex-calculated (herausrechnen) in that way. 
To settle the question about the existence of primeval 
humus, Dr. Mohl makes the following remark on ante¬ 
diluvian vegetation. “ What do we know of the in¬ 
cipient vegetation of the primeval world ? and why, 
before the appearance of the highest developed plants 
such for instance as ferns, should not others which can 
live without humus, such as mosses and lichens, have 
prepared the humus necessary for the higher plants ?” 
This, of course, is the eternal progress of vegetation in 
all times and in every place of the globe. 
[Continued on page 248.] 
EDltor’s Sable. 
The Farmers’ Mine, or Source of Wealth.—* 
The Albany Cultivator, in noticing this work in its 
October No., accuses the editor, Mr. Heermance, of 
“ gross plagiarism” in compiling it, merely because he 
did not put quotation-marks to every extract, or men¬ 
tion the author’s name from whom he quoted when 
doing so. Mr. H., in his preface, acknowledges that 
the work is a compilation, and also gives the names 
of the persons from whom he has made his principal 
extracts. In his copy he had marked all these extracts 
with quotations; but when the work was read in proof, 
the proof-reader, according to the general usage of pub¬ 
lishers, after the acknowledgments of Mr. H. in his 
preface, said they should be struck out, and accordingly 
drd it; so that if there be any blame in this matter, it 
can not be attached to Mr. Heermance. Mr. Gaylord’s 
name, about the omission of which the Cultivator com¬ 
plains so much, is repeatedly mentioned in the extracts 
from his essay in the body of the work—quite enough 
We should suppose to satisfy any reasonable man; and 
if he penned the article in the Cultivator on this sub¬ 
ject,. he only shows his ignorance of general usage 
among printers. Neither Mr. Heermance, nor any one 
else, wishes to rob him of one iota of what may be his 
due. But if tried by his own rule here laid down in 
the Cultivator, a “ grosser plagiarist” than himself 
does not exist; for there is scarcely an idea in his 
Essay on Manures, which has not been taken from 
Davy, Liebig, Johnstone, Dana, and other writers. 
We do not see a single experiment detailed there as 
made by himself, nor do we find one single new prin¬ 
ciple illustrated. The whole merit of his essay con¬ 
sists in his putting the substance of others’ knowledge 
into a compact, popular form. Now we do not men¬ 
tion this for the purpose of finding fault with Mr. Gay¬ 
lord, or detracting from his performance, for his essay 
is a clever paper enough, and was worthy the prize 
awarded to it; we only advert to it in order to show 
him how easily he may be retorted upon, tried by the 
rules he is pleased to lay down for the guidance 
of others; and this revamping other people’s ideas 
is pretty, generally characteristic of hi3 editorials. 
But new ideas are not often to be looked for in these 
matters, and an editor may consider himself fortunate, 
who embodies the knowledge of the day in the most 
agreeable manner for the popular mind. For our own 
part, we can scarcely lay claim to even this merit. 
The Cultivator seems to look upon the introduction of 
the name of the American Agriculturist into the Farm¬ 
ers’ Mine with a very jaundiced eye, and we suspect 
that this is Mr. Heermance’s principal offence . Had the 
name of the Cultivator been introduced instead of that 
of this journal, its notice of the work would probably 
have been in a very different style. We are really 
sorry that the Cultivator could not have been so much 
obliged. 
A Treatise on Food and Diet, with observations 
on the Dietetieal Regimen suited for Disordered States 
of the Digestive Organs ; and an account of the Dieta¬ 
ries of some of the principal metropolitan and other 
establishments for paupers, lunatics, criminals, chil¬ 
dren, the sick, &c., by Jonathan Pereira, M. D., &c., 
Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians in Lon¬ 
don ; edited by Charles A. Lee. New York, J. & H. 
G. Langley, 57 Chatham street. The title above in¬ 
dicates the nature of the book, and we need only add, 
that it is considered a standard authority, and the most 
able and complete work ever published on Food and 
Diet. It makes a book of 325 pages large octavo, 
price $1. No family should be without the work. 
