THE CULTIVATOR. 
J21 
stonhaugh was in possession of a plant of cheat “ with the skin of a 
kernel of wheat so attached to the roots, as to satisfy him and others, 
and amongst others, the late President Madison, who examined it, 
that in this particular instance a kernel of wheat had produced a plant 
bearing heads of cheat.” Now is it not matter of astonishment that 
there should have been only a single instance of the kind ever brought 
to light, when if the doctrine be true, millions of similar changes occur 
every year ? As only one case, however, has been produced, the convic¬ 
tion is irresistible that the grain of wheat was not the parent, but that 
its own offspring might very probably have perished—for “disease” of¬ 
tentimes terminates in death also—after the roots of the two plants had 
become interwoven. Even they who believed in transmutation, should 
not rely upon a solitary case, and that too of such a questionable cha¬ 
racters, to unsettle a fundamental law of nature; but should be even 
ready and willing to produce others without number. But I maintain 
that it was impossible in this instance to establish the remains of the 
kernel to have been those of a grain of wheat. The examination must 
have been made at least five months after the act of germination—for 
the cheat had pioduced heads—and in such a state of decay the resem¬ 
blance could have been little better than fancied. During the past spring, 
and in particular reference to this “fact,” I made several careful 
searches, but could never discover the vestige of a kernel in so advanced 
a stage of the growth. 
It is certainly with no design to draw the editor into controversy that 
I respectfully submit, whether he who occupies so exalted a station in 
the agricultural community, and to whom we habitually look for correct 
information, should not feel himself bound to investigate and to explain 
how this important change takes place? Did he ever see a plant 
which he knew to be wheat when it vegetated, and cheat when it ma¬ 
tured ? He is a botanist, and could at all times readily distinguish be¬ 
tween them. Ought he to remain satisfied, because “ practical far¬ 
mers,” and some of them “philosophers” too, consider wheat to be 
mutable ? Philosophy has believed in other things apparently as absurd, 
and has itself exhibited many strange mutations. If cheat be the pro¬ 
duct of diseased wheat, by what rational process is it that a feeble in¬ 
dividual can be transformed into one of vigorous constitution ? Every 
body knows that cheat will thrive well in all situations, under the 
most slovenly culture, and even under the pressure of the hoof. In the 
ordinary operations of nature, the offspring inherits no more.vital ener¬ 
gy than the parent was endowed with; but according to this doctrine, 
we must believe in a resurrection—not of the living from the dead— 
but one palpable and corporeal, in which health and vigor are derived 
from weakness and disease. It is moreover incumbent on those who 
contend for such a radical change in one department of nature, to show 
that a like transformation takes place in respect to other productions, 
animal as well as vegetable. 
In conclusion, I would suggest to the advocates of transmutation that 
as the onus probandi rests upon them, the'y should take the pains—if 
that would not be out of their element—to select a number of young 
plants of wheat with the kernel attached to the roots, re-set them in a 
place of security, and subject them to such treatment as may promote 
the attainment of their object. Let them then make a candid state¬ 
ment of the result, and their “facts” will be entitled to respect and 
consideration. Goochland County, Virginia, T. S. P. 
CHESS OR CHEAT. 
Mr. Editor —There have some circumstances, in regard to the chan¬ 
ges in grain, come under my observation, which to me are conclusive 
evidence, (however contrary it may be to acknowledged principles,) 
that cheat or chess not only can be produced from wheat, but from rye, 
barley and oats—and in confirmation of which, I will relate the circum¬ 
stances : I have in three instances in this country sown barley, (and that 
which I have sown for the two last years was perfectly clean seed) 
which has produced me an almost entire crop of cheat. I have not in 
the two last years had one head of barley in a thousand, and in the 
other instance, (about eight years since,) it was an entire crop of cheat. 
Last year there was but very little barley in this part of the country 
better than mine. If this cheat has not originated from barley, what 
has it come from—for rye, it is as common to find cheat in it in this 
country as in wheat—but in oats, I have seen but a few who have ob¬ 
served it; what I have seen, and what is known to my neighbors, is 
this: In the spring of the year 1825,1 turned up a piece of sod, about 
eight acres, which I sowed in oats, except about one acre in one cor¬ 
ner of the field, which was sowed with flax. The oats and flax were 
gathered when ripe, and the field was kept shut up with but very little 
pasturing, until the next summer, when the whole field, (except that 
part which had flax on,) was covered with rye and cheat —on the flax 
ground there was nothing but weeds—in the rye there was as great a 
variety as from the seed of an apple or a potato; some grains were long, 
some were short, some black, and some as white as wheat—these are 
the facts. How the grain could have come there, except from the oats, 
is beyond my comprehension: if it had come from the cattle, it would 
Vol. HI. 16 * 
have been dropped alike on the whole field; besides my cattle had not 
been pastured before where they could have gotten it. Rye, barley, 
wheat and oats, as far as my observation extends, all produce cheat or 
chess, and that precisely alike in grain and stalk. If this is a fact 
which the experience of farmers has proved in opposition to an accept¬ 
ed principle of natural law, (which may be wrong) so far as wheat, 
rye and barley are concerned, it proves to me that these grains, in 
all their varieties of summer and winter, bearded and unbearded, are 
originally from the same parent stock —changed only by cultivation and 
change of climate. My faith to me is a new one, and may be esteemed 
ridiculous; but it is at least worthy of an investigation. 
I have in several instances since the above, observed rye in my 
clover fields, sown upon oats, but the evidence of its originating from 
oats, was not alike satisfactory. 
EGBERT T. SMITH. 
Franklin, Warren, Ohio, Sept. 15, 1836. 
CHESS OR CHEAT. 
Mr. Buel —I have long been desirous to see some of your correspon¬ 
dents, calling the attention of farmers to the importance of sowing clean 
seed. This subject I conceive to be peculiarly important to wheat 
growers. 
It is certainly unfortunate that so many of this class manifest so 
much indifference on this subject. It is still more unfortunate that 
they should adopt any opinions which are calculated to produce and 
perpetuate this indifference. Who, for instance, that deems it uncer¬ 
tain whether he reap wheat or chess, when wheat only is sown, will 
be very careful to separate chess from his seed ? Or who, that believes 
that chess will not grow from the seed, will be careful not to sow it? 
The last of these opinions prevails to some extent. The first is very 
generally adopted; at least, so far as my acquaintance extends. Both 
in my view are equally erroneous. I am aware that I stand on dis¬ 
puted ground, when I say that wheat is not converted intp chess by 
the frosts of winter, nor by any other cause. But this is only saying 
in other words, that what a man sows that shall he also reap. 
It would most probably be only a waste of my time (had I leisure 
to devote to the object) to attempt to disprove the opinon that wheat 
turns to chess. I am not vain enough to suppose that any reasons or 
facts that I can produce, would avail to overthrow an opinion which, 
in the views of those who entertain it, is founded on observation and 
experience. But let me respectfully say to them that they may be mis¬ 
taken. Their observations way not have been sufficiently close to save 
them from deception. It may after all, be a fact, that the quantity of 
chess raised, (other things being equal), is in exact proportion to the 
quantity of seed sown. If it is so, then it may be practicable to eradi¬ 
cate this foul seed from our wheat. It is certainly desirable, and the 
prospect of accomplishing the object, in my view, will fully justify an 
effort. 
In hopes that some may be induced to make the experiment, I would 
suggest the following method: Let the ground intended for wheat be 
thoroughly cultivated with the hoe. A spring crop may intervene, pro¬ 
vided no manure be carried on from the yard. The next thing, which 
is absolutely essential, is to separate the chess entirely from the wheat 
to be sown. This I think may be done with one of Gilbert’s fanning 
mills, made at Lyons, Wayne county, N. Y. Let this course be pur¬ 
sued for a number of years, and if chess is not wholly exterminated, 
there can be no doubt but the labor will be fully compensated in the 
improved quality of the wheat. 
Should you deem these suggestions worthy a place in the Cultivator, 
you are at liberty to insert them. 
JOHN I. WILSON. 
Mentz, Cayuga county, September 6, 1836. 
P. S. Since writing the above, the Cultivator for the present month 
has come to hand, containing your reply to the inquiries of Messrs. 
Cahoon & Wilbur, relative to the origin of chess, &c. Many of the 
facts mentioned, as inclining you to adopt the opinion of those who 
think that wheat is transformed into chess may be satisfactorily ac¬ 
counted for, without adopting such an opinion; others of them involve 
difficulties not so easily explained; while others, perhaps, maybe only 
mistakes, and not facts. I have not time, at present, to go into an 
examination of them and to present my views, nor should I deem it 
courteous to do so. It was no part of my design to promote a con¬ 
troversy on this disputed question. I certainly have no desire to be¬ 
come a party to such controversy. There can be no doubt that it would 
be not only safe but profitable, for farmers, in all their practical ope¬ 
rations, to regard the opinion in question as erroneous. To induce 
them to do so, was the sole object ot this communication. I may here¬ 
after state some facts as a further inducement for them to adopt this 
course, and as reasons why I have adopted the opinion which I hold. 
If I am in error, I will still rejoice in the reflection that, in this instance, 
it is more safe than the truth. Respectfully yours, 
September 9th. J. I. WILSON. 
