Gee YE SERB EL LE Lill N Es AKA ~~ \\ Sa . \ We \ \ \\ Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http :/Awww.archive.org/details/cu31924090196688 POPULAR ERRORS ABOUT PLANTS BY ae A. A. CROZIBR. NEW YORK: RURAL PUBLISHING COMPANY. 1892. Publications by A. A. GROZIER, POPULAR ERRORS ABOUT PLANTS.—A collection of errors and superstitions entertained by farmers, gardeners and others, together with brief scientific refutations. 169: Diy CLOT ypicscroine witar, eisalsavia tie whi ners 1.00. THE MODIFICATION OF PLANTS BY CLIMATE.— A.thesis on the influence of climate upou size, form, éolor, fruitfulness; ete., with a discussion on the” question of acclimation. 35 pp , paper’ THE CAULIFLOWER.--A treatise on this vegeta; ble for market gardeners, including information in regard to climate, soil, fertilizers, cultivation, enem- jes, harvesting, marketing, seed growing and vari- eties. 280. PPig ClO D sists isis sntremmmna naaanes serra $1.00. A DICTIONARY OF BOTANICAL TERMS.—A refer- ence book for students of botany and the general reader, including especially the names of the various parts of plants, and the terms used in describing them. (In Press.) RURAL PUBLISHING CO., TIMES BUILDING, NEW YORK. COPYRIGHT, 1892. BY A. A, CROZIER. CORNELL UNIVERSITY Woe l wt LIBRARY 3 1924 090 196 688 CONTENTS. PREFACE. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION\......:.cc0ccseecesceeeeeceeease 9 VITALLY, OW SHEDS tecsstensseaucesvenessnscaicnveaseeteeanaees 14 DOES WHEAT TURN TO CHESS?........ccccccceceeeeneeeee 38 PLANTING IN THE MOON... ceeeeceeecenceneeeeeeeeeeess 51 DO VARIETIES RUN OUT Pou... cececceseeeeeeeetneeaeees 66 VAN MONS’ THEORY.........cccccsssssseeceecesesensneseeceees 72 Bups AND SEEDS....... 76 SEEDLESS FRUITS se eeeeeeseesenessessenecseneeeenensennenenees 79 ERRORS ABOUT GRAFTING.....c.ccccceeseccccensnsseeeneees 81 ERRORS ABOUT CROSSING........c:ccccseseceeeeeeeereeee 85 MISTAKES IN PRUNING ...........cccccccececeetereeeeeeceeess 88 EEXOGENS AND ENDOGENSG.........:::cceeseeceeeeeeeeteeeeces 93 ERRORS CONCERNING THE PITH..........c:ccceeceeeeeee 95 ERRORS ABOUT ROOTS )...........ccccseeceseeeeeccecaeteeeoes 97 SPONGIOLES iisicavsccaeszsicccniansarendaiantoncanaan sieneuneiieundeicenn CIRCULATION OF TIIE SAP ELONGATION OF TREE TRUNKS, ETC.........0.:000005 110 FEEDING SQUASHES MILK..........scccscessesseee seen eeuee 114 THE TLUMUS THEORY....-...0-ccceseceeccucsececsonesevenseass 117 LIEBIG’S MINERAL THEORY............ccesseccesseeeserees 118 (3) 4 CONTENTS. ARE House PLants Ingurious To IIEALTH?... 127 BLUE GLaAss PLANT) DISEASES. sssstedeszacseteseedtovesenemosnssaesanierssts 138 "Waa “IS: AL SECIS: Sc caateansancdedtacanaanceaecteusndeses 141 SOMBEPHING: NE Woven ccsaaasnnsenatnumendercnseniinndisecas 146 AP PEN DING? a cavinea cans wtacasgergheadk Severance 155 Fruits true tO Variety. cssssrcesssnencwnnsavesesnecenses TLow tO SLOW lgSvcsssesassesinsesssonezcrenswsnneenenne INO CEA popcitccseims tbesbarmee cede epenilomn anatianvannatsarseyss Origin of the cabbage... eens Second Nowering of timothy APPS SCCUS scsiosinccinsneaunaainiariesanwcariciweds sndiaratiien NTU CIAL POTASTLCS scscacancnnwscseeuedsaar sive dusieeties ts iy PATUGNERS: CWby.cideu-useansaremaieiieenaeasearuass weed The seat of VitalityVsrsewccceceveces sewers ere Potatoes mixing in the hill... eee Cactus leaves A fruit tree invigorator........... cece eee OCd POM ZOLrS: so vaceccetsanlaadewaeadeacomonnscounaonaed Silica to stiffen wheat straw EL PIPACTA] OPEN FES iia'vacevcoisunassivanens savsilgeuveiegadvvne Influence of electricity on plants.........seeccee 166 4 PREFACE. T would be a thankless service indeed if this con- | tribution to the history of errors were nothing more than a mere exhibition of certain mistakes and delusions. However prone any of us may be to observe and criticise the errors of others no right minded person can seriously contemplate imperfec- tion of any kind with any degree of pleasure; the search for errors has in it none of the satisfaction which rewards the seeker after truth; except, there- fore, as a basis for juster views of plant life, and as a lesson of caution against accepting beliefs not founded in reason, this little work has no excuse for its existence. But if it shall, to some extent, enable those for whom it was prepared to see more clearly some of the principles which underlie the operations of the farm and garden, and lead them to rely with greater confidence on their own ability to understand these natural laws it will have ful- filled the leading purposes for which it was writ- ten. Next to acquiring knowledge, one should desire to know where reliable information may be ob- tained. Ignorance is chiefly disastrous when united () 6 PREFACE. to self-confidence. Although the following pages record many mistakes made by men of science, they nevertheless show that the true interpreters of nature’s laws have nearly always been those who have given some branch of science long and earnest study. It is easy to understand almost any princi- ple of science, but it often requires years of patient effort to discover and demonstrate a simple natural law. We need to know who the original workers are, and who are best informed on all scientific sub- jects. It is because we do not always know whose opinions are most to be relied upon that erroneous beliefs remain so long among us. Nor can it be said that the educated always fulfil their whole duty in rendering information accessible to others. It is to be feared that they sometimes have too little sympathy with those who are unfamiliar with sub- jects to which they themselves have devoted their attention; and they possibly fail at times to appre- ciate the capacity of every-day people to understand what is called scientific truth. If there should be such an impression in the mind of any teacher who may have occassion to consult this book he will doubtless become convinced by its contents that erroneous theories are often quite as complicated and difficult of comprehension as the average pro- positions of science. Nothing is more true than that every healthy mind seeks for an explanation of PREFACE. 7 all phenomena which come to its notice. So strong and universal is this desire that most of us will accept any explanation, however absurd, rather than remain in doubt. This being the case, it cer- tainly rests with those who can give true explana- tions to do so. Too often the leading facts of sci- ence are taught only to regular learners in schools and colleges, and fail to reach the outside world, where, after all, most of the lessons of life are learned. I can think of no better way of impress- ing a truth upon one who has no time for sys- tematic study than to offer it in exchange for an error already held. In recording the following popular errors, therefore, I have frequently given in connection with each topic a brief account of the best existing information upon the subject. It is needless to say that this is not a text-book or a systematic work on popular science; but if the suggestions it contains, and the fragmentary insight into a knowledge of plants which it affords, shall lead any to seek further information upon the subjects treated the wish of its author will be gratified, I. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. LL antiquity, down to the end of the Middle A Ages, believed in the spontaneous generation of both plants and animals, that is to say, their ori- gin directly from the earth or other dead material without a previous germ or egg. Three centuries before the Christian era Aristotle taught the spon- taneous origin of eels and other fish out of the slimy mud of rivers and marshes; also that certain insects originated from the dew deposited upon plants, that lice were spontaneously engendered in the flesh of animals, and that caterpillars were act- ually the product of the plants upon which they feed. Von Helmont, who died in 1644, described in detail the conditions necessary for the spontane- ous generation of mice! Dr. William Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood, has the credit of first propounding the principle that no life could exist without pre-existing life. He main- tained that all living things proceeded from eggs, but just what he meant by eggs seems to be uncer- tain, though he probably included in the term seeds and germs of all kinds, (9) 10 POPULAR ERRORS. Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, seems to have been the first to discover (in 1668), what it now seems difficult to believe that anybody could have ever failed to observe, that the maggots found in putrefying meat were not a direct product of putrefaction, but came from eggs deposited by flies. He proved this to the doubting people of his time by placing some meat in jars having gauze over the top, when the meat within the jars decayed as usual, but contained no maggots. During the revival of learning, at the close of the Middle Ages, the belief in spontaneous generation gradually died out. Upon the invention of the micro- scope, however, and the discovery of low forms of life, the existence of which were before unknown, it cameto be believed by scientific men that these organisms were exceptions to the general rule, for it was seen that wherever suitable conditions for their growth existed they made their appearance. Pasteur of France, who is still living, undertook, almost unaided, to refute this opinion, and suc- ceeded so well that his results have been accepted throughout the scientific world. Students of fungi, bacteria, and other microscopic plants and animals, now take it for granted that wherever any of these organisms appear it is conclusive evidence that there were previously present germs of the same kind. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 11 Intelligent people have now become so accus- tomed to the thought that every living thing comes from a pre-existing germ that it is difficult for us to understand that any other belief was ever held. When Pasteur, however, first began his demonstra- tions that were to banish the last remnant of the belief in spontaneous generation from the educated world he was vehemently opposed by the leading scientific men of the time. His chief immediate opponents were Pouchet of France, who devoted a volume to the advocacy of the spontaneous genera- tion of microscopic organisms, and Liebig of Ger- many, the eminent chemist. Liebig held that fer- mentation is a change undergone by nitrogenous_ substances under the influence of the oxygen of the air: Pasteur proved that the alcoholic yeast plant, which had long been known, but which had not been regarded as of particular importance, was the real cause of alcoholic fermentation. He discov- ered also the germ which causes the fermentation which takes place in the souring of milk, and made many other discoveries of a similar nature. He proved that when these germs were excluded no fermentation took place. One of his experiments was to take a tube con- taining a liquid liable to fermentation, destroy by heat all the living germs it might contain, then admit air which had passed through a red-hot tube 12 POPULAR ERRORS. to kill the germs which the air contained. Under these conditions the liquid was found to keep for any length of time without fermentation. The presence of living germs in the air was proved by actually collecting them by drawing air through plugs of gun cotton; the numerous minute bodies which are usually floating in the air were rendered visible to those who doubted their existence by admitting a beam of light into an ordinary darkened room. The fact that the visibility of the beam depended wholly on the reflection of the light from the suspended particles in the air was proved by keeping the room closed until all the particles had subsided, when the beam was no longer visible, though admitted by a small opening as before. By these and many other ingenious experiments Pas- teur proved the almost universal presence of living germs, and their ability to originate all known cases of fermentation and putrefaction. A debate with Pouchet and others on this subject before the French Acadamy was carried on for months during the years 1861-62, and resulted in a triumphant vindication of the principle for which Pasteur con- tended. It was not until after the Franco-Prus- sian war, however, that Liebig, declining to dis- cuss the question longer, virtually admitted that the fermentation of liquids was due to the presence of living ferments derived from the air as claimed by SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 13 Pasteur, and that others who held that these and other similar organisms were capable of originating directly from non-living matter ceased to advocate their belief. II. VITALITY OF SEEDS. OTHING in connection with forests has at- N tracted more attention than the springing up of a different kind of timber when one forest growth is removed by the ax or fire. This has been attrib- uted to the exhaustion of certain elements in the soil, rendering necessary a natural rotation of species, in order to maintain the continued growth of vegetation, thus furnishing a grand lesson from nature on the importance of a rotation of crops. Without discussing at present the truth of this explanation, or the frequency with which such a natural rotation of forests actually occurs, the case is presented as a familiar illustration of the appear- ance of plants where none of the same kind were known to exist before. The apparently spontane- ous growth of immense quantities of Fireweed, and other species rarely found in either cultivated land or natural forests, on ground which has been newly cleared, is a similar instance of the growth of vege- tation where there is no visible supply of seed. Such cases were formerly regarded as conclusive evidence of spontaneous generation, a belief held (14) VITALITY OF SEEDS. 15 by the ancients, not only with regard to plants, but concerning many forms of animal life also. The advance of science, especially by means of the microscope, has overthrown the argument for spon- taneous generation, and there is hardly an intelli- gent person in any civilized community to-day who does not know that every plant, whether large or small, originates from a seed, or germ. But this conclusion renders it impossible to account for the appearance of new forms of vegetation in such cases as have been referred to unless we can show the origin of the seed. The difficulty of account- ing for the origin of the seed from any plants living in the vicinity made it seem probable that the seeds from which they sprang were trans- ported to the locality many years before and have retained their vitality by being protected by the soil and a covering of leaves, until the removal of the forest, or perhaps the burning of the protecting leaves, admitted the sun and air and furnished the conditions for germination. Other causes besides the removal of forests have furnished new condi- tions which have brought into being new forms of vegetation. I have in mind the case of an old farm- house which had stood for at least 200 years and which was pulled down, when there appeared on the site a thick growth of Charlock or Wild Rape, a plant wholly new to the neighborhood. 16 POPULAR ERRORS. In an editorial in the Gardeners’ Chronicle for 1863, page 1, 228, an account is given of the follow. ing observations by Mr. G B. Wollaston of Chisle- hurst, on the Mid-Kent Railway “ Certain excavations were necessary, and these had to be made to a depth varying from five to ten feet in the virgin sand and gravel of the district. Thereupon Erigeron Canadense sprang up every- where, so as to completely cover the earth to the almost total exclusion of other vegetation. The Erigeron was not previously known to grow in the neighborhood. Indeed it is one of the so-called rare species, of which comparatively few habitats are known in England, and even its claim to rank as a native plant is generally questioned. Yet, the interesting fact Mr. Wollaston records, though not to be taken as exact evidence, seems to afford strong presumptive proof that the plant is a true native, and that its seeds must have been buried for an ‘indefinite period in the soil.” In “Schooleraft’s Missouri” (1819), page 29, Henry R. Schoolcraft says: ‘The soil thrown out of the pits sunk in search of ore also produces sev- eral plants and trees which are not peculiar to the surface. Such are the Poplar or Cottonwood, and Beach Grape, which are found to flourish only on the rich alluvial lands composing the banks of rivers. Nevertheless, I have seen these growing VITALITY OF SEEDS. 17 about the mouths of long neglected pits, the soil of which had been raised thirty or forty feet, or where previous to digging no such trees or vines existed. Tais fact is to be referred only to a difference in the quality of the soil at the depth alluded to, and warrants us further in the conclusion that all soils are impregnated with the seeds of the trees and plants peculiar to them, as well at great depths as on their surfaces. ”’ A similar case is quoted by Geo. P. Marsh, in his work on “ Earth and Man.” On the Penobscot River in Maine, forty miles from the sea, a well was dug, in the bottom of which sand similar to that of the seashore was found. Some of this was placed in a pile by itself and afterwards spread about the place. The next season there sprang up in this sand a number of trees, which when they came to maturity were found to be the Beach Plum, which never was known so far from the shore. The pres- ence of these seeds, and the peculiar character of the sand from the well, was accepted by some geol- ogists as evidence that the sea-coast had formerly occupied that spot. This and similar instances led Professor Marsh to say that the vitality of seeds “seems almost imperishable while they remain in the situation in which nature deposits them. ” Another case, which I have never seen doubted, is a three Raspberry plants growing in the gar- 18 POPULAR ERRORS. dens of the London Horticultural Society, raised by Professor Lindley from seed discovered in the stomach of a man whose skeleton was found thirty feet below the surface of the earth at the bottom of a barron or burial mound near Dorchester, Eng- land. With the body had been buried some coins of the Emperor Hadrian; from which it is assumed that these seeds had retained their vitality for the space of sixteen or seventeen hundred years. In the Gardeners’ Chronicle for 1848, page 700, is an account of some seeds of Roman origin taken from a tomb in France, and referred to the third or fourth century, and therefore 1,500 or 1,600 years old. The seeds were carefully removed and were sown by two different persons, whose names are given, together with the manner in which they were sown. From both lots there were obtained plants of Medicago lupulina and Heliotropium Europeum, and from one of the lots Centaurea cyanus in addi- t.on, Another case is given in the same connection of seeds found in an earthen vessel eight feet be- low the surface, and supposed to belong to an age anterior to the Roman conquest of Gaul. From these seeds about 20 plants of Mercurialis annua were grown. But the cases which have attracted more atten- tion than any others are those of the germination VITALITY OF SEEDS. 19 of wheat and other seeds taken from the wrappings of Egyptian mummies, or from the tombs in which mummies were found. In a recent number of the Christian Union I find this statement by Canon Wilberforce, the great English preacher: “I have seen beneath the micro- scope a seed 38,000 years old start into instant germination when touched with a drop of warm water; so a human soul, long apparently lifeless, begins to grow when touched with the water of life.’ In the New York Voice, for March 27, 1890, is the following, entitled “Seed Corn 4,000 years Old.” “During the season of 1889 a most remark- able crop of corn was raised by David Drew, at Plymouth, New Hampshire. In 1888, Mr. Drew came into possession of some corn grains found wrapped with a mummy in Egypt, supposed to be 4,000 years old. These were planted and grew. It had many of the characteristics of real corn; the leaves were alternate; it grew to be over six feet high; the midribs were white; but the product of the stock—there is where the curious part came-in. Instead of growing in an ear like modern maize, it hung in heavy clusters at the top, on spikelets; there was no tassel, no silk, each sprig was thickly studded with grain, each provided with a separate husk, like wheat grains.” [Evidently sorghum. ] In the London Times for September, 1840, Mar- 20 POPULAR ERRORS. tin Farquhar Tupper gives an account of experi- ments on the germination of mummy wheat, con- cerning which the editor of the Gardeners’ Chronicle states that he finds no flaw whatever. Following is an abstract taken from the latter journal: “Sir Gardener Wilkinson, when in the Thebiad, opened an ancient tomb (which had probably re- mained unvisited by man during the greater part of 8,000 years), and, from some alabaster sepulcral vases therein, took with his own hands a quantity of wheat and barley that had been there preserved. Portions of this grain Sir G. Wilkinson had given to Mr. Pettigrew, who presented Mr. Tupper with twelve grains of the venerable harvest. In 1840 Mr. Tupper sowed these twelve grains.” Of these only one grew, producing two small ears. Details are given of the pains taken to insure that the plants which might grow should come from the seed planted. The soil was carefully sifted and three seeds were planted in each of four garden pots at the angles of a triangle. The grains sown were brown and shrunken, unlike any modern wheat. Another case, described by George Wilkes in the same journal for 1856, relates to the finding of some wheat in the wrappings of a mummy opened at Cambridge. He states that a nobleman who was present gave some of the seed to his gardener VITALITY OF SEEDS. 21 who planted it and grew therefrom three kinds of wheat different from any that Mr. Wilkes had ever seen. A writer in the Country Gentleman for 1888, quotes from a recent paper read before an English society on the vitality of mummy wheat, in which it was stated that no fewer than fifty-nine species of flowering plants, raised from mummy wrappings in Ezgypt, had been identified. In one instance “a sarcophagus was brought from Egypt by the Duke of Sutherland; and seeds which were taken from it, being planted, germinated.” The late Professor Alexander Winchell quotes Lord Lindsay as saying that he found a bulb in the hands of a mummy at least 2000 years old, and that it grew and produced a Dahlia. But the Dahlia does not grow from a bulb, is a Mexican plant, and was not known to botanists until 1789. Another account of this case by Rogers in his “ Scientific Agriculture” speaks of it as a ‘‘root” being so found. This might do, if the Dahlia had been known in Egypt at the time indicated. These and other instances of the supposed growth of seeds taken from the Egyptian cata- combs have been published in nearly every agricul- tural journal and work on agriculture for the past fifty years, and have been accepted even by good authorities in science, including Doctor Carpenter 22 POPULAR ERRORS. of England and Professor Agassiz of our own country. The dry air and uniform temperature of the tombs of Egypt, and the protection afforded by the embalming process, which has so wonder- fully preserved the ancient bodies, has been regarded as sufficient to preserve vitality in the grains which it was the custom of the ancient Egyptians to bury with their dead, either upon the body itself or in receptacles placed near them. The subject of the vitality of seeds buried by natural agencies in the soil has been fully treated by Professor Alexander Winchell in his admirable work, the “Sketches of Creation.” It is known to geologists that at the close of the Tertiary period, just preceding the glacial epoch, the climate of the United States was very similar to what it now is, though somewhat warmer. In rocks of that period, found in Kentucky, have been discovered remains of the Beech, Live Oak, Chincapin, Pecan, Honey Locust, and other trees found in the same region to-day. In the rocks of this age on the upper Missouri River have been found the Walnut, Per- simmon, Tulip tree and other species, in localities which have since become too cold and dry for them. There is abundant reason to believe that in the Ter- tiary period the vegetation of North America was more vigorous than now, but composed of nearly the same species, During the glacial period this vege- VITALITY OF SEEDS. 23 tation is supposed to have been nearly all destroyed, as far south, at least, as Alabama and Texas. How then came the continent to be re-clothed when the glaciers receded to the northward, leaving im- mense deposits of sand and gravel and barren rock in place of the original prairies and forests? This is the question Professor Winchell endeavors to answer. In the work referred to, in a chapter on the “ Vitality of Buried Vegetable Germs,” he says: “For some years past I have been inclined to believe that the germs of vegetation which flour- ished upon our continent previous to the reign of ice, and many of which must have been buried from twenty to one hundred feet beneath the surface of the glacial rubbish, may have retained their vitality for thousands of years, or even to the present time.” Facts, he says, show the presence of grains “where they could not probably have been intro- duced during the human epoch.” The remains of ancient vegetation are abundantly sufficient in all the glacial region of the northern hemisphere to have supplied these germs had they retained their vitality, and the gradual washing away of the surface by streams has been a sufficient means of bringing them to the surface. In his remarks upon ancient forests, Professor Winchell Says: 24 POPULAR ERRORS. “The existence of a succession of forests of different prevailing species has been satisfactorily established in Denmark by the researches of Steen- strop on the Skovmose, or forest bogs of that country. These bogs are from twenty to thirty feet in depth, and the remains of forest trees in successive layers prove that there have been three distinct periods of vegetation in Denmark—first a period of the pine; secondly a period of the oak; lastly a period of the beech, not yet arrived at its culmination.” Similar buried forests are found in our own coun- try, in New Jersey, Wyoming and elsewhere. These extinct forests, he says, have no doubt “stocked the accumulating soils with their stores of vitalized fruitage.” “The drift deposits became the vast granary in which nature preserved her store of seeds through the long rigors of a geolo- gical winter. ” Such is the theory presented by an astute geolo- gist, to account for the reappearance of vegetation after the glacial epoch,—as at least more probable than spontaneous generation, or the “ fortuitous distribution by any modern agency.” He directly adds, however: “it must be confessed that crucial observation is yet to be made. If vegetable germs exist in the drift they can be discovered before- VITALITY OF SEEDS. 25 hand. I am not aware that any thorough search has ever been made for them. ”* Let us now turn to the second part of our sub- ject and re-examine some of the cases which have been presented, and see to what extent they appear well founded, and how far they are supported by other and more direct evidence. Let us see what has been done in the way of direct observation and experiment to determine the limit of vitality in seeds, and notice whether any explanations can be afforded to account for what, if true, are certainly remarkable instances of duration of life. For seeds are living objects, and require, like all other living things, a constant supply of food to support life; and as they have no means of supplying this out- side of themselves, we come, by this course of rea- soning, to the idea that there must necessarily be some limit to the duration of their vitality, however abundant their supply of stored up food may be. We know that under ordinary conditions seeds vary in their limit of vitality; hence we may suppose that under even the most favorable conditions they will also vary. The seeds which in ordinary exper- ience keep the longest are seldom those which are of the largest size, hence we infer that amount of available food is not the most important feature in * In a recent article published in the Forum, Prof. Winchell shows that there is reason to doubt the belief in a continuous continental glacier. 26 POPULAR ERRORS. prolonging the life of a seed. Probably seeds never lose their vitality from having entirely exhausted their supply of stored up food. The fact that seeds may germinate again and again, after having their store diminished by previous attempts at vegetation, shows that for at least the first stages of germination most seeds contain more nutriment than they need. There are two agents nearly everywhere present reducing all organized matter to the inorganic state; that is to say, two causes at work producing decay in everything of an ani- mal or vegetable nature. These causes are, first, the oxygen of the air; second, numerous low forms of vegetable life which feed upon decaying organic matter and assist in producing decay. These out- side sources of destruction are far more active in their,demands upon the seed than is the living plant which it contains. To protect themselves against these destructive influences seeds are en- closed in a more or less impervious covering; and the length of time during which seeds will live depends very much upon the nature of this covering. The differences in duration of vitality among seeds how- ever depend probably even more on the composi- tion of the seed itself than on the character of its covering. Why it is that the thick-shelled Chestnut, Walnut and Hickory will retain their vitality only a few months, while the thin-skinned grains of corn VITALITY OF SEEDS. 27 and wheat ordinarily live as many years, we do not fully know. If we say that the oiliness of the nuts is the cause of their quickly becoming rancid, what shall we say of the oily seeds of the cabbage tribe, some of which are noted for their long vitality? It is enough for our present purpose to know that there exist recognized differences depending on the nature of the seed. That the coating of seeds is an important factor in resisting decay is seen by the quickness with which corn meal or wheat flour deteriorates, as compared with the whole grains from which they are made. Everyone knows too that the conditions under which seeds are kept have much to do with the duration of their vitality. The most favorable conditions for prolonging life in the seed are the opposite of those which favor germination. Thus, to keep seeds we put them in a dry place. Dampness, even if it does not induce the germination of the seed itself, favors the growth of fungi which destroy its vitality. Thus it is that in the damp climate of England it is more difficult to keep seeds than in this country. But moisture, if sufficient to exclude the air, or accompanied by too low a temperature for the germination of the species, may favor prolonged vitality in seeds. Under whatever conditions seeds are kept, however, there is a continual loss of vitality from the time that they ripen, It is true that some seeds ordi- 28 POPULAR ERROBS. narily require to be of a certain age before they will germinate readily, but this time is needed for the softening and partial decay of their shells, and the incipient stages of germination; there is no recorded case of old seeds germinating with greater vigor than fresh ones. The rapid deterioration of nearly all seeds, and the perfectly well known fact that very few kinds are reliable for planting after more than four or five years, is sufficient in itself to cast serious doubt over the statements of seeds having grown which were taken from the ancient tombs of Egypt or from great depths in the earth. Nevertheless, as one positive example is sufficient to refute any amount of presumptive evidence to the contrary, it is necessary to inquire into the accuracy of the reported cases of the germination of such ancient seeds, and to learn whether similar results have been obtained in other cases. In 1840, the British Association for the Advancement of Science appointed a committee to conduct a series of experiments for the purpose of determining how long seeds of different kinds could retain their vitality. These experiments were car- ried on for ten years, and included the testing of a great number of samples of many species. Among them were samples of wheat and other grains from Egyptian and other tombs, none of which germi- VITALITY OF SEEDS. 29 nated. The oldest seeds which germinated were those of the Choronilla, at 42 years, and Colutea at 48 years of age; of the latter only one seed germi- nated out of seventy-five which were planted. In 1843 the Gardeners’ Chronicle published an editorial on mummy wheat, of which the. following is an abstract: ‘Every year produces cases of this sort about the harvest season, and even this season at least twenty specimens have been sent us of wheat ears purporting to have a ‘mummial’ ori- gin; and strange to say they have all proved to belong to the Egyptian wheat, or Ble de Miracle, called by botanists Triticum compositum. Wehave never however succeeded in satisfying ourselves that the corn from which such wheat is said to have been produced was really taken from mummy-cases. There is always some defect in the evidence.” In 1856 George Wilkes of England said: “TI had three small parcels of wheat, two of them directly from Egypt, and I was assured they were taken out of mummies; the other was very old, but from whence I know not. I planted the whole very carefully, but not a grain grew.” In 18638 the Press Scientifique des Deux Mondes contained the following description of a series of experiments made in Egypt by Figari-Bey on the wheat found in the ancient sepulchres of that country. “A long dispute occurred a few years 80 POPULAR ERRORS. ago as to what truth there might be in the popular belief, according to which this ancient wheat will not only germinate after the lapse of three thou- sand years, but produce ears of extraordinary size and beauty. The question was left undecided; but Figari-Bey’s paper, addressed to the Egyptian Institute of Alexandria, contains some facts which appear much in favor of a negative solution. One kind of wheat which Figari Bey employed for his experiments had been found in upper Egypt at the bottom of a tomb at Medinet Aboo, by Mr Schnepp, Secretary in the Egyptian Institute. There were two varieties of it, both pertaining to those still cul- tivated in Egypt. The form of the grains had not changed; but their color, both within and without, had become reddish, as if they had been exposed to smoke. The specific weight was also the same, viz., twenty-five grains toa gramme. On being ground they yield a good deal of flour; but are harder than common wheat, and not very friable; the colour of the flour is somewhat lighter than that of the outer envelope. Its taste is bitter and bituminous; and when thrown into the fire it emits a slight but pungent smell. On being sown in moist ground, under the usual pressure of the atmosphere, and at a temperature of 25° (Reaumer), the grains became soft, and swelled a little during the first four days; on the seventh day their tumefaction became more VITALITY OF SEEDS. 81 apparent, with an appearance of maceration and de- composition; and on the ninth day this decomposi- tion was complete. No trace of germination could be discovered during all this time. FPigari-Bey obtained similar negative results from grains of wheat found in other sepulchres, and also on bar- ley proceeding from the same source; so that there is every reason to believe-that the ears hitherto ostensibly obtained from mummy wheat proceeded from grain accidentally contained in the mould into which the former were sown.” In 1860, twenty years after the publication rela- tive to the germination of mummy wheat by Mr. Tupper already referred to, Professor Heuslow pub- lished in the Transactions of the British Associa- tion for the Advancement of Science an account of his investigation of the circumstances under which this former experiment was made. A quantity of the original lot of mummy wheat was found still in the possession of Sir Gardener Wilkinson. This was carefully examined and found to contain a few grains of unmistakably fresh wheat; and besides this it contained grains of Indzan corn, a grain not known in Egypt until after the discovery of America. Further inquiry revealed the fact that the ancient wheat had been for a time in the keeping of agrain merchant of Cairo, who supplied the jars into which it was put after being taken from the cata- 32 POPULAR ERRORS. combs. Under this new light the fact that one grain grew out of the twelve which were planted will hardly be considered as evidence that the seeds which grew actually came from the tombs. Such errors as these, together with the uniform failure of more recent attempts to germinate this ancient wheat, have convinced the scientific world that no actual germination of such wheat ever took place. In regard to the supposed cases of the germina- tion of seeds in earth thrown from the bottoms of wells or other deep excavations, it is very difficult to prove directly that seeds have not grown as supposed from such soils, and few actual experi- ments have been made upon the subject. In 1875, Doctor Hoffman reported some experiments of this kind in the Botanische Zeitung, in which he says: “For the purposes of the experiments about three- quarters of a hundred weight of the Loess soil was taken out at a depth of twelve feet below the sur- face when the earth was being leveled for the rail- way station at Mousheim, near Worms.