Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1857-01-28
WHOLE NO. s1o4.
far t9e fmmsr.
THE ORIGIN OF WHEAT.

1t is fact, not generally known, that
the origin of wheat and other cereals il
involved in obscurity, for the old notion
that wheat is indigenous in Central Asia,
that starting point of the human race,
had been exploded by the researches of
modern botanists. History informs Us
when our forefa,heas first began to eulti-
vate the carrot, gooseberry, currant, as
paragus, beet-root and strawberry; but is
silent as to when wheat, rye, oats, barley,
beans, maize. cucumbers and melons,
were known, only as indigenous plants.
Nowhere do the cereals exist as native,
nowhere have they shown a tendency TO
run wild. If not preserved by human
labor they would apparently perish allo-
geiher. ~
ln a late number of the Edinburgh Re.
view, an able paper is devoted TO discuss
ing the origin of The cereals, especially
of wheat. The writer states that there
are two theories upon this subject One
considers races of plants to be immutable,
and holds, therefore, that wheat existed
once, now! may still exist, indigeneously,
somewhere. The other maintains thai
the cereal, as represent known, has been
developed by cultivation. This is the
opinion held by the writer in the Review,
who even specifies the particular plant
from which wheat has originated, a grass
growing wild on the shore of The Medit-
erranean, and known TO botanists by the
name of @giloPs.
In conformation OF this hypothesis may
be adduced the fact, that wherever the
early history of the cultivation Of spe-
cies is known, it is found that man has
first applied 10 his use plant growing
wild about him. He discovers some ber-
~, for example, whose taste he likes;
and in order 10 have it more plentifelly
begins to cultivate it; the cultivated plant
improves upon the original one; he sows
seeds from the best specimens; and at
last barry is obtained, so superior to
the one he first found growing wild, thai
it could not be possible to trace its origin,
if the process had not taken place under
his own observation. Analogous to this
it is fair 10 presume, has been the origin
OF wheat.
In fact, French botanist, reasoning
in this way, and observing many striking
points Of resemblance between the egil-
ops and wheat, undertook to develop the
latter from the former, and by saving,
year after year, the seed from such plants
as appeared 10 approach nearer 10 its OBJ
iect- The plant, thus obtained, still con-
tinues to be cultivated, both by him and
by others, and 10 yield real, bona Jfds
/ wheat.
The opponents of the development
thereof, however, maintain that the plan,
on which this experimentalist worked,
was an accidental hybrid, or cross, be-
tween The @gilops and the wheat growing
in adjacent fields. In favor of this view
they adduce the fact that, by such cros-
sing, arti6cially conducted, similar re-
suits have been produced. On the other
hand, natural hybrids between grasses,
are as yet unknown to botanists. More
over, when different sorts of wheat are
grown together, they never cross. A
still more conclusive proof is the fact that
hybrids are rarely maintained beyond the
second generation without an infusion OF
new vigor from the parent stock, in
which case gradual assimilation to the
latter occurs-Hence, if the experiment
which we have quoted had originated in
natural cross between the @silops and
wheat, the hybrid would either have per.
ished after year or TWO, or have return
ed to its original type
II is probable therefore, that wheat
never existed wild, but has been develop
ed by cultivation from q rude plant.
The Edinburgh Reviewer, afer review
ing the question in every aspect, comes
to this opinion at last, and saws nothing
can shake his conviction unless wheat
should be found really growing Wild in
some rayin e Of central Asia.-Pkizadsl
phia Ledger.