1849. 
221 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
your crop, you place yourself in the situation of him 
that hath, whereby you will receive, not only the ad¬ 
vantages of a more retentive soil, but the fertilizing 
qualities in the atmosphere, which perhaps have floated 
over many barren and badly cultivated fields, where 
the crops had not the surface of leaf or strength of con¬ 
stitution to attract them. Thus, you not only receive 
the increase of your two or five talents, but that which 
is taken from him that hath not. Such are some of 
the inducements held out to the farmer, “ to improve 
the soil and the mind.” Dean. Lyonsdale, Febru¬ 
ary, | 1849. 
Transmutation. 
The notion of the transmutation of wheat into chess, 
is not yet quite extinct. The editor of the Michigan 
Farmer cautions his readers against the attempt to 
raise wheat on wet land, because, he says, “ if the 
plant survive , it will be more likely to be chess than 
wheat.” He declares his readiness and ability to main¬ 
tain his “ position,” that wheat will change to chess, 
by “ incontrovertible facts;” a..d adding a word of la¬ 
mentation on the “ blindness and inconsistency of poor 
human nature,” he goes on to state that—“The men 
who maintain that wheat never degenerates into chess, 
generally undertake to sustain their position by theo¬ 
retic reasonings, In opposition to the most undoubted 
facts before their eyes; and yet these are the very 
men, generally speaking, who rant against book-farm¬ 
ing, because, they say, it consists in visionary theories, 
regardless of practical experience ”!! The article con¬ 
cludes by reiterating the assertion, that—“ the doctrine 
of transmutation may be triumphantly sustained.” 
The obstacles to the successful culture of wheat on 
wet ground are sufficiently numerous, without adding 
the fear of transmutation. The idea, however, is new 
to us, that—“ the men who maintain that wheat never 
degenerates into chess, are the very men, generally 
speaking, who rant against booktfarming” ! But we 
hope our friend will favor the public, as soon as prac¬ 
ticable, with his “ incontrovertible facts,”' in proof of 
transmutation; for we have never seen any such proof. 
The doctrine has been long asserted, and to its advo¬ 
cates belongs the duty of demonstrating its truth. It 
is contended that wheat, under certain circumstances, 
is converted into chess; and if it is so, w^e do not see 
why the fact may not lie clearly established. For in¬ 
stance, take a quantity of earth, suitable for the growth 
of wheat, and subject it to such a degree of heat as 
will be sure to destroy the vitality of any seeds it may 
contain; put. the earth in pots of suitable size, and sow 
a certain number of wheat grains in each; note the 
number which come up. Subject the plants to the 
process deemed most likely to cause transmutation. 
It is an original law of nature, that the earth shall 
bring “forth grass and herb, yielding seed after its 
kind,” [Gen. i, 12,] and the transmutation of a plant 
into another, of a distinct genus, is so great a devia¬ 
tion from this law, that nothing short of the most une¬ 
quivocal and positive evidence can warrant its belief. 
We notice that the Berkshire Culturist hints at a 
“ solution of the chess difficulty',” on the ground of 
cross-impregnation. A correspondent of that paper 
gives some instances of the intermixture of different 
kinds of beans: and the editor, in commenting on the 
circumstance, relates similar instances of the mixture 
of different kinds of Indian corn. We see nothing par¬ 
ticularly striking or unusual in the cases cited; cer¬ 
tainly, they fall very far short of touching the point 
under consideration,—the mixture of wheat and chess. 
If the “ scarlet runners” (beans.) had mixed with peas, 
or the Indian corn with wheat, there would have been 
something more analogous to the supposed mixture of 
wheat and chess. But the mixture mentioned, was 
with plants of similar varieties, belonging to the same 
species. Wheat ( Triticum ) and chess ( Bromus ) are 
not only different species, but of different genera,—as 
much so as wheat and oats, or wheat and Indian corn. 
When it is proved that these hybridize, we will admit, 
with our friend of the Culturist , that “ the subject is 
worth examination.” 
But hybrids, whether plants or animals, show traits 
of their diverse parentage. Nothing of this kind is ex« 
hibited by chess. We have never seen or heard of any 
special variation in the species ( B. secalinus,) to which 
it is alleged wheat changes; and there is no reason to 
doubt that it has produced “seed after its kind.” from 
the beginning. 
No Protection to Crows. 
Eds. Cultivator —The New-York Farmer and Me¬ 
chanic , contained an article copied from a Massachu¬ 
setts agricultural paper, headed “ Protection to Crows,” 
in which the writer asserts that crows are a benefit in¬ 
stead of injury, to the farmer; that they do more good 
by destroying worms and insects, than injury in pulling 
up corn ; that soaking corn in tar-water and rolling it 
in plaster, will prevent crows from pulling up corn. I 
know by experience, that corn thus prepared is not al¬ 
ways secure from the attacks of crows; true, they will 
not eat much of it ; but they will pull a hill here, and a 
hill there, in hopes of finding the pure article, until a 
large portion of the corn is pulled up. 
Twine, stretched around the corn field and several 
times across it, is the method generally adopted by the 
farmers in this neighborhood to protect their corn-fields 
from crows, and it rarely if ever fails to be effectual. 
But the damage done to our corn-fields, is but a small 
part of the sum total of the injury that we have to suf¬ 
fer from these rascally depredators. I am their deci¬ 
ded enemy, and believe them to be the most mischiev¬ 
ous and thievish of the feathered race. They destroy 
our eggs, chickens, young turkeys, and sometimes even 
ven urc v attack young lambs, which they soon kill by 
plucking jut their eyes—however they rarely, in this 
section, kill iambs, except when these animals are enfee¬ 
bled by cold storms, and lie in fields or woods remote 
from the house. When hens or turkeys have nests a 
little distance from the house or barn, I have known 
them to watch until the hen or turkey left the nest, and 
then seize the egg and away. 
Two years ago, the spring was far advanced, and I 
could not find the nest of an old hen turkey. After 
many fruitless searches, one morning I missed her, and 
'after hunting a short time, saw an old crow perched on 
the highest of a group of fruit trees, (about twenty 
rods from the house,) beneath which was the turkey on 
a nest, among the high grass in one corner of the fence. 
Thinks I—•“ old crow, you don’t get these eggs.” I 
went to the house, watched to see the turkey leave the 
nest. At last I saw her coming towards the house, 
and started to get. the eggs, when the crow, although 
I was in full sight, and halloed, flew into the nest, 
siezed the newly laid egg, and flew away. The nest 
was empty. To carry eggs, they thrust their bills into 
them. Their destruction of the eggs of birds is great, 
especially of those species which build open nests. In 
western New-York during the last few years, crows 
have increased, while many other species of birds have 
become rare. The American Robin, Ferruginous Thrush 
Cat-Bird, and many others are seldom seen; while ma¬ 
ny species, asjf to avoid the crows, build their nests 
among the trees and shrubbery near dwellings, both in 
the village and country, where the crows dare not 
come. The birds’ eggs and young birds destroyed by 
crows, would, if suffered to live, do vastly more good 
in the destruction of worms and insects, than crows, 
besides enlivening the country with their presence, and 
