36 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
msr’s Mag.” I tried the experiment, supposing that 
plucking the blossoms might possibly have some favor¬ 
able influence, but after measuring the results, no difler- 
ence could be perceived. J. J. T. 
HARD NAMES. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —Permit me to offer your 
readers some excuses for the use of hard names, by wri¬ 
ters on agriculture, particularly writers on Agricultural 
Chemistry, Botany, Vegetable Physiology, &c. The 
fault seems to be not in the writers who use the terms, 
but in the readers who complain of them. Suppose a 
person who cannot read was to receive a letter from a 
friend; he goes to a neighbor, letter in hand, and com¬ 
mences abusing his friend, the correspondent, for addres¬ 
sing him in terms that he, the receiver, cannot compre¬ 
hend. What would be thought of his complaint ? Now 
this is precisely the case with those who complain of 
the hard nanes used in the various branches of science, 
and especially agricultural essays. The language of 
science is necessarily an universal language. Were it 
not so the writings of a Frenchman would not be under¬ 
stood by an Englishman, and so of all other nations— 
each nation would have its own sciences, from the be¬ 
nefits of which all the world besides would be excluded. 
Scientific terms, therefore, by general consent of all na¬ 
tions, are given in the Latin language, which is under¬ 
stood in all enlightened nations, and this uniformity of 
nomenclature is effected. Suppose a different state of 
things. Each nation uses a language of its own on all sub¬ 
jects in its writings. Nothing but a confusion of tongues 
equal to that of old Babel, would be the result. As familiar 
examples only look at the names applied in different parts 
of the country to some of our plants. Timotpiy, for ex¬ 
ample, a very important grass to all of us, you will al¬ 
low, is called Herds’ Grass in New England, while 
Herds’ Grass itself is quite a different sort of thing. 
Now suppose the botanical name of Timothy were used, 
hard as it is, would not the readers of all our public 
writings, better understand the subject ? There being 
but one true name, all would soon understand it. Che¬ 
mical terms are of the same character. No man can 
write an article that will be of the least use, without 
using what are called “ hard names,” simply because 
the science is comparatively new, new principles are 
discovered and new names for these principles must be 
used, and without the use of these names and terms, no 
one would understand what the writer said. Besides, a 
writer for the public cannot know to what section of the 
country in the world his writings may find their way— 
if he knew that his articles on the grasses would go to 
New England, and no where else, he might with some 
show of propriety say, “Herds’ Grass-,” or if it were 
confined to the middle and northern states, he might say 
“ Timothy;” but as he cannot either know or suppose 
either, he will very properly say Phleum pratense, which 
every body can understand by referring to their books. 
When agricultural chemists are writing on the subject 
of manures or soils, they are equally obliged to use 
terms of fixed and certain meaning. Suppose they were 
to say. hearts horn, instead of Ammonia, this would give a 
Very indefinite idea of the thing intended. But if the 
say Ammonia, every body may know what was intended 
by referring to the books. When a chemist says putre¬ 
faction evolves certain gases, and by the addition of 
certain things, these gases may be fixed, and thus re¬ 
tained for the benefit of the soil, how can he express 
himself in a manner so that one who knows not even of 
the existence of such gases, can comprehend him ? 
There are no common names or equivalent terms for any 
of these principles. Hydrogen gas for example has no 
common equivalent—no other word expresses the same 
sense. Carbonic acid gas has been called fixed air, but 
who would understand the meaning of fixed air better 
than they would that of the true term. No, gentlemen. 
Instead of complaining of hard names, let our farmers set 
to work and learn their meaning, or cause their sons and 
daughters to be taught them; this is the best remedy, 
and indeed the only one. 
An illustration of the folly of adopting or using com¬ 
mon names is given in the case of Timothy. Here is 
another. The old and well known pest of the farmer, 
the Oxeye Daisy, is known by ail the following names 
in Baltimore county, Maryland, viz: Caton’s Pink, Ca¬ 
rolina Pink, Jefferson Pink, Richardson’s Pink, Mary¬ 
land Aster, White Daisy, White Weed, Wild Camomile. 
The persons who know the weed by either of these 
names, do not know it by any of the others. The con¬ 
sequence is, when the persons who know it by the name 
of Caton’s Pink, see an article treating of the best means 
of getting rid of the Jefferson Pink, they pass over it with 
the self congratulation that they are not plagued with 
that pest at least, whilst at the same time their fields are 
overrun with it completely. Now would it not be bet¬ 
ter for every body to call this weed by its proper botan¬ 
ical name, “ hard” as it is, viz: Chryslenthemum aucan- 
themum ? To conclude, however, with the question I 
intended to put to those who quarrel about hard names— 
suppose the school boy was to say to his teacher, “PIUS’S© 
sir, give me the words in English, Latin words are so 
hard,” what w'ould the teacher of the Latin school 
think ? S. 
P. S_In my own family I was regularly in the habit 
of teaching my children the proper botanical names of 
every plant in the flower garden, of which I had a large 
collection. The children had no more difficulty in 
learning these “ hard” names, than they would have had 
in acquiring the common ones, nor half so much, for 
there are numerous common names to all plants, but one 
proper name. All this they easily acquired before they 
knew a letter of the alphabet, and always used these hard 
names in their common talk with visitors and playmates. 
SELF-FODDERING BARN_(Fig. 20.) 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —Mr. J. Horsfied has 
me fairly on the hip; my only surprise is, that my error 
has escaped notice so long; it occurred to me a day or 
two after the transmission of the plan, (p. 147.) I say 
it occurred to me, for I beg you to understand, that I 
W’as not so ignorant, as to suppose that a base of 3 feet 
of hay would not sustain a burthen of 12 feet width, and 
proportionate length. My limited experience even, had 
taught me, that hay had not the mobility of parts, with 
either gaseous or liquid matter. It was a strange over¬ 
sight, yet am I in doubt, but that such errors, by excit¬ 
ing more critical observation, and more careful compa¬ 
rison of one’s own notions, benefit as much as tolerable 
schemes wholly correct in their details and proposals. 
Excuse me for thinking, in the present instance, that an 
attempt to remedy the error, will be better than an entire 
renunciation of the plan. I propose the insertion (see 
fig. 20,) of each longitudinal sill into the transverse, 3 
feet from the ends of the latter, (the said posts to stand 
as represented.) The racks should run from sills in a 
slant position, to girth under the swing roof. From 
same sills, (6 feet apart,) racks, rails, or slabs, should 
fall upon a beam, equi-distant from either sill, and seven 
or eight feet above them; thus forming a triangular va¬ 
cant space in interior of barn, which would not be lost; 
since by hanging doors at either end, it would form a 
shelter for sheep, or calves, and they could there feed 
themselves through the racks. Furthermore, scantlings 
should run from the interior beam to ridge, in order that 
by mowing the hay on either side, none should rest upon 
the beam—thus defeating the design. By stripping the 
covering from one end, the interior is thus partially ex¬ 
posed. (Compare with fig. 86, p. 147, last vol.) 
By this it will be seen that the entire base (if the cattle 
do their duty,) will be eaten away; and without a sup¬ 
port the hay must settle; a base is de facto and de jure, a 
support, therefore the hay must settle, the cattle will 
live, and the tanner will be hideless. 
Is the syllogism sound? 
Salem, Ct. Jan. 14,1842. D. G. M. 
A PROFITABLE COW. 
Messrs. Editors —I send you some statements of the 
production of my cow for publication, hoping it may 
induce some to reform in the treatment of animals so 
useful and profitable. We made last spring in one 
month, from one cow, fifty-nine pounds of butter; com¬ 
mencing the fifth day of May, and ending the fourth of 
June. Within that time we weighed her milk for three 
successive days—the whole weight one hundred and 
eighty-nine pounds, averaging sixty-three pounds per 
day. Some five or six years ago, in the month of April, 
we made in twenty-one days thirty-nine pounds and six 
ounces, besides using milk freely for the family. We 
also made on another trial of nine months, two hundred 
and seventy-two pounds, besides using milk for a family 
of six persons. The cow was ten years old last spring, 
had a calf at two years old, and has had one every year 
since; is of the native breed, large size, always in good 
condition, and has been well kept from a, calf, to which 
cause I attribute a portion of her superior qualities, and 
extra size; though there must be something ‘'bred in the 
bone,” that gives us jmllow butter at all seasons of the 
year, and milk always nearly, and often quite the whole 
year. While on her trial last spring, she was fed six 
quarts of buck wheat bran per day, with what hay she 
would eat till grass took the place of hay. 
Would not all farmers do well to keep fewer cows, 
and keep them better? is not one well cared for more 
productive than one poorly fed and attended? is not a 
warm stable better than the leeside of a rail fence? is 
not a good bed of clean straw better than one of manure, 
or can they be as comfortable with thirty or forty pounds 
of it adhering to their thighs, as if they were kept 
smooth and clean as in summer ? In short, does not 
any thing that adds to their comfort, add to their pro¬ 
duction ? 
Such treatment may be objected to on account of ex¬ 
pense, but has the objector counted the cost ? Do tur- 
neps cost more than hay ? Does bran, or oats, or corn 
even ? I think not at this time. I see nothing extra, 
but a trifle of labor and care, and does not the superior 
condition of the animal pay for that more than four-fold. 
Yours respectfully, Daniel J. Curtis. 
Canaan Centre, Jam. 18, 1843. 
COMMENTS ON the CULTIV-4.TOR foe DEC. 
Gentlemen —In answer to your Address “ To the 
Patrons of the Cultivator, and to the friends of Agricul¬ 
ture in the United States,” I will take the liberty to 
predict, that if all are as well pleased with your paper 
as Commentator has been, and only half as well instruct¬ 
ed by it as himself, you will never want ample support; 
at least, so long as you continue to conduct it with the 
same good sense and sound judgment for which it has 
heretofore been distinguished. 
In speaking of the animal called the Gopher, you have 
been misinformed. It is not “peculiar to the country 
west of the Mississippi,” but abounds in Florida, and is 
common in many parts of Georgia. 
The attack of your correspondent Mr. Wm. Partridge, 
upon Prof. Leibig, seems to resolve itself into a ques¬ 
tion of veracity, at least for those of your readers who 
like myself are no chemists. Thus, the latter asserts as a 
matter of fact, so notorious that it requires no proof, what 
the former pre-emptorily denies. But Mr. Partridge be¬ 
ing fully aware that King Numbers is against him, resorts 
to the following expedient to destroy the force of this puz¬ 
zling fact. He very courteously and most modestly com¬ 
pares all the followers of Professor Liebig, amounting 
probably to many thousands of the most learned men in 
Europe, to a flock of sheep, and Liebig himself to their 
Bell-Wether!! 
Verily, Messrs. Editors, this correspondent of yours 
is a rare hand at an argument, whatever may be his che¬ 
mical and other acquirements, of which I pretend not to 
judge. And Professor Liebig and Daubeny must take 
good care what and how they write, if such an intellect¬ 
ual drawcansir is to have the cutting up of their works. 
I hail with pleasure,!* the return of our worthy friend 
Solon Robinson, to the pages of the Cultivator. His pre¬ 
sent communication is characterised by that same strong, 
sound, practical good sense which has distinguished all 
his writings. And for all who have determined to cut 
loose from their old homes in search of new ones, he 
will prove, as I confidently believe, an excellent guide, 
both in spirit and in truth. 
Your good friend, Mr. S. E. Todd, has found out “nine 
plausible reasons for subscribing for the Cultivator.” 
Permit me to add a tenth, which I deem something more 
than plausible. It has contributed greatly towards mak¬ 
ing zealous farmers, or rather farmeresses, (if I may coin 
a word,) and horticulturists of several highly estimable 
ladies, who have been induced thereby, to talie much 
more than they ever did before of that out-door exercise, 
which is worth all the physic in the doctor’s shops for 
strengthening delicate constitutions, and imparting health 
to both mind and body. This same service it would ren¬ 
der to any others in similar situations, if the perusal of it 
operated on them in the same manner; and who then 
would say, that its real value could be estimated in dol¬ 
lars and cents. 
The “Workingman’s Cottage,” by W. R. North, jun. 
is a very snug, comfortable looking building, and so 
have been several others of which you have given us 
drawings from time to time. But as well as I recollect, 
no estimate of the cost has ever been given in any of the 
descriptions which have accompanied the drawings. 
And yet no farmer should build even his house, without 
ascertaining beforehand, as near as practicable, what he 
will have to pay for it. This preliminary counting the 
cost of every thing, is absolutely essential to all agricul¬ 
tural thrift, and he who neglects it will be fortunate in¬ 
deed, if he discovers his error before it be too late to. 
apply the proper remedy. 
I thank Mr. Morrell for reminding me of one of my 
remarks on a former comm\inication of his, as it furnish¬ 
es the opportunity to assure him that I did not misunder¬ 
stand him. Indeed, I think that I now know “the cut 
of his jib,” (to borrow a sailor’s phrase,) sufficiently 
well never to mistake his object, which heretofore has 
always been a good one; and so I confidently believe it 
will continue, for men rarely change either their princi¬ 
ples or their purposes, after reaching the age to which 
I suppose he has attained. 
And now, Messrs. Editors, having finished my labors 
for 1842, as a volunteer reviewer of your paper during 
that period, I must beg leave to say a few words before 
I bid you farewell, both as to my past and future opera¬ 
tions in regard to the Cultivator. If you yourselves and a 
majority of your readers have approved of what I have 
heretofore done, I shall feel myself amply rewarded for 
all the time that my comments have cost me. Nay, more, 
I shall be encouraged to continue them for 1843. But it is 
a fixed principle with me never to be intentionally obtru¬ 
sive. I shall therefore be constantly on the watch for 
gyjjjpjiQjjjg Qf disapprobation on the part of your readers; 
and you may rest perfectly asstu’ed that I can be silenced 
at any time, by a hint far less broad than a certain impu¬ 
dent fellow said he had once received, that his company 
was disagreeable to a family which he attempted to visit. 
Upon being asked what the hint was ? he replied that it 
was nothing more than being kicked out of doors. 
With earnest wishes for your success as^ Editors of the 
Cultivator, for your constant welfare as private individu¬ 
als, I remain your old friend, 
Dec. 31st, 1842. Commentator. 
