Monongalia mirror. [volume] (Morgantown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1855, 1852-10-02
Agricultural Department.
From tho Magazine Of Horticulture.
,Ehe Transformation Of Plants,
and the importance OF Its
results.
ny THE EDITOR.

transmutation Of wheat into chess
Intelligent cultivators, and men O
veracity, have affirmed that such chan
ges have taken place, and have oficrcc
to furnish specimens of the transmu
tation; but the question has been
considered by most agricultural wri'
tors so absurd, and indeed apparently
impossiblc,-setting at naught, as it
would appear, all our established no
tons of botanical distinctionS,-tha,
those who have advanced such state
mcnts have scarcely had heprivilcgo
Of telling their own story.
We willingly admit that VIC have
no faith in any of these alleged trans,
mutations; nevertheless, if all that is
now told is true, our belief is some
what shaken, and tho transmutatlon u
theory not by any means, as has boon
supposed, impossible; still we must
have good evidence before we can
believe it probable: such evidence, it
will be seen, is now uaduccd by two
learned French betunists.
In tho Gardeners Chronicle we
find some remarks on the subject OF
the origin of wheat, which are wor-
thy the attention of every cultivator !;
not particularly for the detail Of the
Iexporiments by which tho grain is
traced from its original form TO its
present perfect stale, but for the re-
suits which DR., Lindly deduces from
these experiments, and which arc OF
great importance TO all amateur and
practical cultivators who have any
desire to improve our flowers, fruits
and vegetables.
No one woullrecognizc in tho rich
Baldwin apple tho sour and worthless
crab, or in the delicious Seckel pear
the austere willing, which grows in
our hedgc-rows. These changes arc
scarcely greater than that of tho 1Egi-
Ions transformed into wheat through
twelve succeeding generations. Our
vegetables have undergone nearly the
same alteration; few persons would
supposethc rich Champion of England
pea was the offspring Of the small
kind known as the field pea, or sweet
corn the result of cultivation upon
the wild grain of South America
This we all have seen accomplished !;
and though tho experiments of NJ.
Fabrc are not as familiar, they appear
sufficiently well authenticated to be
taken as facts; and such being the
case, how can we longer doubt that
the transmutations heretofore brought
to notice, are not strictly true!-
In 1914, the question Of tho trans
mutation Of corn was raised in this
Journal, at p. 555 of the volume for
that year, and at p. 779 it was further
alluded to. Thcreupon ensucd many
communications OH both sides of the
question, and from time to time the
subject has been occasionally revived;
but it must be owned that it never
theless remains Just where it was, so
far as anything like proof is concern
ed. Belief has opposed itself to I'M.
belief, crcdulity to incrcdulity, and
assertion to condensation; but OF
evidence derived from well-conducled
experiments, we have had nothing
For ourselves, without by any means
encouraging the belief in the change
of oats into rye, Or in any similar
transmutations, we have also asserted,
from the first, that no naturalist, &C.
uuainted with certain facts which have
become known Of late years, could
venture absolutely to deny the posi-
bility of such changes. Writing i'll
ls44, we said that ain Orchidaccous
plants, forms JUST us different as wheat,
barley, rye and oats, have been proved
by the most rigorous evidence to be
accidental variations of one common
form, brought about no one knows
how, but before our eyes, and rcn.
derod permanent by equally mys,c'i.
Gus agency" "Then," says reason,
"if these Uncomfortable changes have
been proved to occur among Orclida.
ccous plants, why should they No, also
occur among corn-planls! for it is no,
likely that such vagaries will he con-
fined to one little group in tho vcge'
table kingdom; it is far more ra,iona!
to believe them 10 be II part Of the
general system Of the creation. -
ls44, p. $685. Aud again, in reply
to u correspondent, it was added, las
we have repeatedly stated, We think
that no man should undertake to IF:
firm &c uihrlr0. what is possible OF
impossible in nature. (lSl5, p. lOl.,
Some have thought these views OBJ
icclionablc, believing that we alreddy
possess that amount Of knowledge oI
natural phenomena which justiIios oul
deciding dusmatic4lly upon such gen
:, cral questions us The cIMngc Of one
plant into another. Ii has been even
held that scep,ici>m in such matiers
tcnds to unselllo mems minds, und IL
induce disbelief III all by which sci
encc holds fast, We do not cVncu,