THE CULTIVATOR. 
163 
“POPULAR ERRORS,” No. 3.—CHESS. 
Messrs. Editors—I perceive in your August num¬ 
ber, a letter from Mr. Hulett, of Byron, controverting 
the position assumed by me in a former communication, 
that the belief in the transmutation of grain was an 
error. I cannot say, since Mr. H. is a believer in the 
doctrine of the change of wheat into chess, that I re¬ 
gret the appearance of his paper in the Cultivator ; as 
it may have occurred to some, that such an error is too 
palpable to be either common or “ popular.” His let¬ 
ter, however, will show there are yet some individuals 
who prefer relying on former prejudices, to thinking 
and observing for themselves, and consider ancient er¬ 
rors to be preferable to new truths. 
As your remarks showed the fallacy of the “ facts” of 
Mr. H., my object now is not so much a reply to that 
letter, as to show that the “ notorious unbeliever, M. S. 
D.” and those who think with him, are not without some 
reasons for their belief. As there is reason to imagine 
a renewal of the “ chess controversy,” would not be in¬ 
teresting to the majority of your readers, I think I may 
promise not to occupy your columns again in this way. 
What is the question at issue ? It is whether wheat 
can by any cause become so injured, and have its na¬ 
ture so changed, as to produce a plant in every respect 
dissimilar and unlike the parent seed. Opinion, preju¬ 
dice, and appearances are in the affirmative; common 
sense, the law of nature, and fact, in the negative. 
The advocates of transmutation are not agreed 
among themselves, as to the precise cause of this change, 
some attributing it to one thing, and some to another. 
The wheat shelled at harvesting and afterwards allow¬ 
ed to lie and germinate; the heads exposed on the out¬ 
sides of stacks to repeated sproutings and subsequent 
drying; plants trampled upon and mutilated by ani¬ 
mals; plants with the tap root cut off, or broken off 
by freezing, and feeding off the tops of the wheat plant, 
have all been supposed capable of effecting this trans¬ 
mutation of wheat into chess. 
It would be a curious and instructive chapter in the his¬ 
tory of ignorance and credulity, to trace this audits kin¬ 
dred superstitions to their source ; but for the task, I have 
at present neither time or inclination. It is enough to 
know that the doctrine of transmutation of grain, is doubt¬ 
less as old as that of the transmutation of metals, and pro¬ 
bably as well based and as rational. But the particular 
form in which it now appears, of the change of wheat 
into chess, seems comparatively modern. Almost every 
other grain has in former times been charged with this 
freak; it remained for the wiser moderns to discover that 
wheat was capable of this degeneracy. 
What are the facts with regard to wheat and chess, 
irrespective of the question of transmutation, and re¬ 
specting which all intelligent men are agreed ? Wheat 
is known to the naturalist as belonging to a genus of 
plants named Triticum, and the species, Triticum sati¬ 
vum. There are many varieties, as the red, white, 
bearded, awnless, Egyptian, &c. fkc.. which occasionally 
run into each other, and thus originate new varieties, 
as the experiments of Le Conteur demonstrate. It has 
remained a distinct plant, as we have the most conclu¬ 
sive evidence, for about 3,000 years, as kernels of this 
grain, taken from the folds of a mummy brought from 
Thebes to Paris, have germinated, and produced a beau¬ 
tiful wheat. Its grain is always produced on ears or 
spikes, and a deviation from this order of nature is un¬ 
known. 
Chess is also known to the naturalist as a genus of 
plants called Bromus; and that species which is found 
in wheat, is named Bromus secalinus. Botanists enu¬ 
merate between sixty and seventy species, several of 
which, the wheat chess as it is called being one of 
them, have been introduced from Europe, and naturali¬ 
zed in this country. It is a perfect plant, ripening its 
seeds, and producing true chess plants from those seeds ; 
and consequently no hybrid or monstrosity, as some for¬ 
merly contended. The head ot chess is panicled or 
spreading like oats, or some of the grasses, and this in¬ 
variably. No one has ever seen chess in spikes, or 
wheat panicled. 
In all the controversy respecting chess, the burden of 
proof evidently lies with those who affirm the transmu¬ 
tation. It is enough for those who are the opponents of 
the theory, simply to deny the possibility of such a 
change, and wait for the proof. This has been done, 
and premiums have been offered for an instance of con¬ 
version of wheat into chess, or for a method that would 
effect such a transformation; but though there were 
enough to assert their ability to perform either, no in¬ 
stance of conversion, or method of transformation that 
would bear- the test of a close investigation, has been 
discovered. The facts relied upon, have all turned out 
like those alluded to by you in your last number; and 
it may safely be averred, that as yet there is not an iota 
of evidence that a kernel of' chess has ever grown on a 
wheat ear ; that stalks of chess have grown from a ker¬ 
nel of wheat sown; or that wheat and chess have both 
grown from the same root. Here, opinions and appear¬ 
ances are both discredited ; facts, those that wilt bear 
the most rigid examination and the closest scrutiny, are 
alone admissible. 
Common sense pronounces that whatever is contrary 
to the known and established laws of nature, is neces¬ 
sarily absurd and false; nothing but a direct interposi¬ 
tion of the Deity can alone prevent the justness of such 
a conclusion. How will the theory of transmutation en¬ 
dure such a test ? To answer this so that all shall un¬ 
derstand it, a few comparisons as illustrations of the 
principle may he necessary, and I will endeavor the 
subjects shall be such as are familiar to most. 
The genus Quercus or oak, and the genus Pyrus to 
which belong the apple and pear, are not more dissimi¬ 
lar in every respect than wheat and chess ; yet who has 
ever deemed it probable that an injury, or any possible 
treatment of the white oak could convert it into a crab 
apple? The genus Bos or ox, and the genus Equii or 
horse, are not more strongly marked by nature’s invari¬ 
able stamp than wheat and chess; and we have just as 
good reason to believe that the freezing of a calf’s tail 
in January or March, would effect such a change in its 
constitution as to transmute it into a magnificent don¬ 
key in August; or that because a colt is infested with 
lice and horse distemper in the spring, that he will turn 
out a full blood Short Horn in September, as that wheat 
in consequence of any injury can change to chess. r I he 
genus Homo or man, and the genus Simia or monkey, 
are certainly not more different in their characters than 
those of Triticum and Bromus. The man who believes 
in the transmutation of wheat into chess, has no right 
to laugh at the opinion of Lord Monboddo, that man¬ 
kind were originally monkeys, some tribes having at 
this late period but just parted with their tails ; for this 
opinion is in perfect accordance with his avowed belief; 
nor should he be surprised, if after a fit of sickness, or 
the amputation of a limb, he should find himself a veri¬ 
table Qurang Outang, since such a result is a legitimate 
inference from his theory. 
The doctrine of transmutation is as irreconcilable with 
facts, as it is repugnant to common sense. I have be¬ 
fore alluded to the experiments made to change wheat 
into chess, made in consequence of the chess controverssy 
in 1832-3, recorded in the 2d and 3d volumes of the Ge¬ 
nesee Farmer, and the 14th volume of the American 
Farmer, and not a single instance could be given, where 
the experiments were properly conducted, in which 
chess was grown ; and in no case whatever was there 
the slightest evidence furnished of transmutation. In 
Ruffin’s Farmers’ Register for 1833, is the result of an 
experiment commenced in the previous year, and de¬ 
signed by the experimenters, gentlemen of the first re¬ 
spectability, (including the editor of that Journal,) part¬ 
ly for, and partly against the theory, to fully and fairly 
test the doctrine. They say in their report —“ Our de¬ 
sign in the experiment was to bring into operation, eve¬ 
ry cause to which this change is usually ascribed by 
different persons, namely—1. Imperfect seed—2, thick 
sowing—3, a wet soil—4, a hard or unbroken soil—5, 
grazing or mowing.” The whole series of experiments 
from beginning to end, were made with the greatest 
nicety, and the result may be told in a single line of the 
report: “Not a single head of cheat (chess) or spelt 
was produced.” Defective, or mutilated, or frozen, and 
in all soils, the result was wheat and nothing else, and so 
it will always be. 
The matter is apparently a plain one. The advocates 
of transmutation assert that proofs of the fact are as 
plenty as blackberries; they are invited to produce them ; 
the attempt is made, and one after another they disap¬ 
pear before the Ithuriel touch of truth. Is there any 
difficulty in demonstrating that wheat grows from wheat, 
or chess from chess? Not in the least; or would there 
be any in showing that chess grows from wheat, if 
such was the fact, which every farmer is justified in 
asserting is not the case. I will add here, what is a 
most incontrovertible argument, that numerous instan¬ 
ces are on record in which skillful and careful farm¬ 
ers by continued attention to weeding out chess, and 
sowing none in their seed, have freed their farms from 
this pest. This, according to the doctrine of transmuta¬ 
tion, on a grain growing farm, would be an impossibili¬ 
ty ; but if, as I have shown, chess is a perfect plant,se¬ 
parate in character from all others, it can be extermina¬ 
ted, as charlock, or steinkrout, or any weed that grows 
from its seeds alone, certainly may be. 
There is another argument which may with proprie¬ 
ty be here adduced, the force of which cannot be denied 
or evaded by any one who admits the authenticity of 
its source ; and this argument is derived from the scrip¬ 
tures. It may be said the scriptures were not given to 
teach men farming or philosophy. Admitted : yet every 
one is aware that the inspired penmen in illustrating 
and enforcing the great moral truths of their mission, 
frequently referred to natural truths, and particularly 
those connected with agriculture, and built their argu¬ 
ment on these. II these natural facts to which they so 
undoubtingly refer, are false, then their argument is de¬ 
fective and good for nothing; a result which few will 
allow. 
Of the many passages which would be to my purpose 
I select three ; and the first is from the first chapter of 
Genesis. “ And the earth brought forth grass and herbs 
yielding seed after his kind ; and the tree yielding fruit, 
whose seed is in itself after his kind.” That isj grass 
yielding grass, corn yielding corn, wheat yielding wheat, 
chess yielding chess, oaks producing oaks, ami apples 
producing apples, and that invariably; for “ yielding 
seed, after his kind,” cannot possibly mean after any oth¬ 
er kind. The next quotation may be found in 1st Cor¬ 
inthians, XV. chap .—“ Thou fool, that which thou sow- 
est is not quickened except it die. And that which thou 
sowest, thou sowest not that body which shall be, but 
bare grain ; it may chance of whea t or some other grain. 
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to 
every seed its own body .” No man can read this passage 
in its connection, and not see, that if the doctrine of 
transmutation is true, Paul’s argument for the resurrec¬ 
tion is false. The third instance is from Galatians VI. 
“ Be not deceived, God is not mocked ; for what a man 
someth, that he shall also reap .” This declaration af¬ 
fords the most perfect example of inconclusive reason¬ 
ing in the English language, if transmutation is possible. 
How easy it would have been in this case for a Galatian 
to have retorted,—“ Ah, Paul, your argument is specious, 
but unsound. We know that wheat turns to chess after 
soAving, and therefore we do not reap what we soav ; 
your argument, then based on this illustration respect¬ 
ing the consequences of our conduct, falls to the ground 
of itself.” With what propriety could the man who 
sowed good seed in his field, and found tares had grown, 
assert that an enemy had been at Avork in his field, if 
the change of one grain or plant to another wa$. possi¬ 
ble ? Hoav could he know the result was not that of 
transmutation ? If the doctrine of transmutation is true. 
Belsham might justly assert, as he has, that the Evan- 
gelists and Apostles Avere most illogical reasoners. 
I still think that the consequence of this belief is most 
injurious to the farmer. No error is harmless; certain¬ 
ly not one like this. Hoav often do Ave hear it said Avhen 
farmers are urged to free their seed Avlieat from chess— 
“ it does no good, chess neA r er grows, and wheat turns to 
chess, so that nothing is gained by solving clean seed.” 
An error like this, and a popular one too, according to 
L. H.’s oavii shoAving, in a wheat growing district, must 
be productive of immense mischief. Conscious from 
my oAvn observation in this country, that such is 
the case, has induced me to extend these remarks to a 
greater length than I intended, or you may think advi¬ 
sable. M. S. D. 
Genesee, August 18, 1840. 
RUST IN WHEAT, Ac. 
Messrs. Editors of Cultivator —In my hasty note 
of July 13th, published in the Cultivator this month, I 
gave no particulars—I had evmn forgot that I had Avrit- 
ten, until I read it in the paper, and also the excellent 
article upon the subject of rust in Avheat. At the same 
time my attention was draivn to a new and singular 
theory of the cause of rust, published in the Laporte 
paper, which I liav r e cut out and enclosed.* Youivill 
see by that Avhat an immense crop Avas on the ground 
in that single county ; in a county too, that the landAvas 
purchased of the Indians in 1832. 
Some of the best fields harm been cut, but the grain 
is poor stuff. Some of it does not weigh more than 30 
lbs. to the bushel. I havu correct information 150 miles 
south and 100 miles wide, east and west, all of Avhich 
is a most fertile wheat soil, and immensecrops were on 
the ground, and almost entirely blasted. There are, 
howevur, some good crops of spring wheat, though very 
little of it improved kinds. 
This is certainly the greatest loss by rust that I was 
ever acquainted with. And in all this vast extent, IdonT 
think there is a barberry bush. So that is not the cause. 
That the fly is the cause, as adAmnced by the Laporte 
writer is something nerv, and I must doubt the correct¬ 
ness of the theory. 
But Avliat is the cause? There is one fact worth noticing, 
that fields situated in places sheltered by Avoodland suf- 
’fered least. And even by the side of fences, where in 
the fore part of summer the wheat Avas the most rank 
and luxuriant, it Avas much better than in the middle of 
the field. Why Avas it so? Was it not OAving to the 
more rapid sroAvth in June, of that Avliich Avas the most 
bacliAvard in May ? The Aveather was very “ niv-etgy," 
and the wheat grew uncommonly fast, so much so that 
the common expression among those not Avell acquaint¬ 
ed with the theory of rust, said that “ the stalks grew 
so fast that they bursted and let out the juice and that 
turned to a red mould,” &c.—and the same thing ap- 
* Our Wheat Crop. —This year is without a precedent in 
regard to the failure of our reheat crop. The committee which 
Avas selected to ascertain the probable number of acres of 
wheat growing in this county, reported that there Avere not 
less than 25,000. This estimate in my opinion, was not an 
exaggerated one. Now had this come in as Avell as we had 
anticipated or hoped, we should have had 500,000 bushels of 
wheat in qur county; 100,000 bushels of this would have 
been sufficient tor our seed and consumption, and the residue 
we might have disposed of. This at 50 cents per bushek 
would have brought into our county $200,000. This sum would 
have liquidated an immense amount of debt; but owing to 
the fiy, army-worm and rust , our wheat has been measurably 
destroyed; and in lieu of our having five hundred thousand 
bushels, we shall not haA'e one hundred thousand, and this 
will be of a very inferior quality. So it will readily be per¬ 
ceived that we have sustained a very considerable loss. It is 
natural for ns to inquire into the cause of this stupendous fail¬ 
ure. My views on this subject were published in the Laporte 
“ Herald” last summer. I shall therefore merely reiterate 
them. That the fly Avas the cause of the rust in our wheat 
this year, I do not entertain a doubt. I have examined my 
own, and divers of my neighbors’ stubble fields very faithful¬ 
ly, and the conclusion to which I haA'e come is, that eA'erv 
spear of wheat in which the fly deposited its nit, last, fall, wa'g 
killed. They survwed until the Avarrn weather ensued in the 
spring, when they died. From this bunch of dead wheat 
there sprang up new shoots or stalks, in like manner as they 
would come up around the trunk of a sapling which had been 
girdled.. I ha\'e enumerated as many as 20 dead spears in 
one bunch. Noav, for the wherefores of the rust.. These 
neAy shoots came forward with amazing rapidity; consequent¬ 
ly they accumulate an undue quantity of sap; "and the stalks 
having more juice than it was possibfe for them to retain, and 
the extension became so great, that the sap was forced out at 
the spiricle or pores; the premature death of the stalk ensued 
and a consequent shrinking of the berry. This juice or sap 
being of a glutinous substance, adhered to the surface of the 
stalk and became a kind of rust.— Laporte Whig. 
