Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1857-03-05

1T is a Iacs not Seneraily knoWh, lHaI t'le
origin of wheat and other cereals. is in
volved ,bscuriiy, for the Old notion that il
is indigenous in Central Asia, that starting
point of the researches of modern botanists.
History informs us tha. when our foreE..
thers began to cultivate the gooseberry.
currant, asparagus. beet root and strawber-
ry: but is silent as to when wheat, rye, bar
ley, beans, maize, cucumbers and melons
were known only as indigenous plants
Nowhere do the cereals exist as native; no.
where have they tendency to run wild
II they were not preserved by human Ia
bor. they would apparently perish toseth-
er.
In late number of The Edinburgh Re-
view, an able paper is devoted to discuss
ing the cereals, especially wheat. The writer
states that there are two theories upon the
subject. One considers races of plants TO
be immutable, and holds, therefore, that
wheat existed, nay, may still exist, indigi-
nously, somewhere The other maintains
that the cereals, as at present 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; grass grow
inc wild on The Mediterranean, and known
to boianis,s by Tie name Of egilops.
In confirmation of this hypothesis may
be adduced the fact, that, whenever the
early history of the cultivation of species
is known. it is that man has first applied tc
his own use plant growing wild about
him. He discovered some berry. for ey-
ample, who's, taste he likes; and in order
to have ii more pleniifally, begins 20 cul-
tiva:e it; tie cultivated plan. improves upon
the best specimens; and at last berry is
obtained, SO superior to the one he first
found growing wild, that it could not be
possible to trace lis origin. if the process
has no. taken place under his own obsersa-
ton. Ana,ayus to this. i. is fair TO pre-
sumo, has been the origin Of wheat.
In fact, French boaHist, reasoning in
this way, and observing many striking
points of resemblance between the agilops
and wheat, undo rtook to develop the latter
from the former, and by saving, from year
10 year. the seed from such plants IS
appeared toapproach nearer to lis object,
actually succeeded in his object. The plant
thus obtiined, i'll continues to be culIiva-
ted, both by lin and by others, and to
Weld real. bona tide wheat.
The opponents of the development there
Of. however, maintain that the plant on
which this exp-rimentaIiss worked, was an
acci len:al hybril. or cross. between the
asilops and wheat growing in adjacent
fields. In favor Of this view, they adduce
the fact that by such crossing. artificial
" conducted. similar results have been
produced. On the other hand, natural hy-
brids, between grasses. are as yet unknown
to boiauists. Moreover when different sorts
of wheat are grown together, they never
the fact that hybrds are rarely maintained
beyond the second generation without an
infusion Of new vigor from the parent
stock, in which case gradual assimula-
lion to the latter occurs. Hence, If the ex-
pertinent which we have quoted, had orr
ginated in natural cross between the agi-
lops and wheat, tie hybrid would either
have perished afier year or two, or have
returned to its original .ype.
l. is probable, therefore, that wheat new
er existed wild. but has been developed by
cultivation from a rude plant. The Edin-
burgh Reviewer, after reviewing the ques-
ton in every aspect, comes to this opinion
a. last, and says nothing can shake his
conviction, unless wheat should be found
really growing wild in some ravine of Cen
iral Asia.