THE CULTIVATOR. 
143 
ight, when if the doctrine be true, millions of similar changes oc¬ 
cur every year 1 As only one case however has been produced, the 
conviction is irresistible that the grain of wheat was not the parent, 
but that its own offspring might very probably have perished—for 
“ disease” oftentimes 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 character, 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 in¬ 
stance 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 produc¬ 
ed heads—and in such a state of decay the resemblance could have 
been little better than fanciful. During the past spring, and in par¬ 
ticular 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 inves¬ 
tigate and to explain how this important change takes place 1 Did 
he ever see a plant which he knew to be wheat when it vegetated, 
and cheat when it matured 1 He is a botanist, and could at all 
times readily distinguish between them. Ought he to remain satis¬ 
fied, because “practical farmers,” 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 product of diseased wheat, by 
what rational process is it that a feeble individual can be transform¬ 
ed into one of vigorous constitution 1 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 energy 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 weak¬ 
ness 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, they should take the 
pains—if that would not be out of their element—to select a num¬ 
ber 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 treat¬ 
ment as may promote the attainment of their object. Let them 
then make a candid statement of the result, and their “facts” will 
be entitled to respect and consideration. T. S. P. 
Goochland County, Virginia. 
CIIESS OR CHEAT. 
Mr. Editor —There have some circumstances, in regard to the 
changes in grain, come under my observation, which to me are con¬ 
clusive 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 circumstances: 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 mo 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 observed it; what I have 
seen, and what is known to my neighbors, is this: In the spring of 
the year 1825, I turned up a piece of sod, about eight acres, which 
I sowed in oats, except about one acre in one corner 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 potatoe; 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 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 obser¬ 
vation extends, all produce cheat or chess, and that precisely alike 
in grain and stalk. If this is a fact which the experience of far¬ 
mers has proved in opposition to an accepted principle of natu¬ 
ral 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 cli¬ 
mate. My faith to me is a new one, and may be esteemed ridicu¬ 
lous ; 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. Duel — I have long been desirous to see some of your cor¬ 
respondents, calling the attention of farmers to the importance of 
sowing clean seed. This subject I conceive to be peculiarly impor¬ 
tant 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 un¬ 
certain whether he reap wheat or chess, when wheat only is sown, 
will be very careful to saperate chess from his seed! Or who, that 
believes that chess will not grow from the seed, will be careful not 
to sow it 1 The last of these opinions prevails to some extent.— 
The first is very generally adopted; at least, so far as my acquain¬ 
tance extends. Both in my view are equally erroneous. I am 
aware that I stand on disputed ground, when I say that wheat is 
not converted into 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 opinion 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 mistaken. Their observations may 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 eradicate 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, 1 
would suggest the following method: Let the ground intended for 
wheat be thoroughly cultivated with the hoe. A spring crop may 
intervene, provided no manure be carried on from the yard. The 
next thing, ivhich is absolutely essential, is to separate the chess en¬ 
tirely 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 pursued 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 Culti¬ 
vator, you are at liberty to insert them. 
JOHN 1. 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 enquiries 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 sa¬ 
tisfactorily accounted for, without adopting such an opinion ; others 
of them involve difficulties not so easily explained; while others, 
perhaps, may be only mistakes, and not facts. I have not time, at 
