In the last number of the Farm. Journal, we have a letter, which we suppose is from the eminent botanist of that region, which we copy, as suggesting many reasons why Mr. Meehan may be right. The statement of MR. MEEHAN, in the April number of the Farm Journal, alleging that he has observed the sexual characters of the Strawberry flowers to be variously modified by culture, or different methods of treatment—has elicited some strong asseverations of _opinion_, in contradiction to that allegation of _fact_. One writer unhesitatingly declares the alleged change to be “_utterly impossible_:” and I understand that in the Queen City of the West, they have had a _public gathering_, to deliberate on the subject, which resulted in a _Pronunciamento_ adverse to MR. MEEHAN’S statement,—his facts and observations being _rejected_ by a clear majority of the voters present! The matter being thus _settled_, by preamble and resolution after the manner of political difficulties at a war-meeting, it may seem to be out of order, now, to offer any remarks on the controverted topic. Nevertheless, as this is reputed to be a Free Country, I should like to be indulged with the privilege of submitting a few suggestions,—if not in arrest of judgement, at least as a plea in mitigation of the sentence, against my friend MEEHAN. It is the remark of a vigorous and sagacious modern writer, that “no scientific question was ever yet settled dogmatically, nor ever will;” and I think the same may be especially predicated of questions of fact, in Natural History. I may here observe, that I was favored with the opportunity of examining one of MR. MEEHAN’S specimens,—in which there were certainly two scapes from the same root—one bearing a cyme of _pistillate_ flowers (with minute rudiments of abortive stamens,) and the other a cyme of _perfect_, or hermaphrodite flowers: and whether the specimen was the progeny of a pistillate, a staminate, or a hermaphrodite plant, I should think the inference plausible, that the flowers on at least _one_ of these two cymes, must have been a modification, or altered product, of the parent plant. It is this kind of change, in the character of the flowers, which I understand MR. MEEHAN to announce, as having occurred in plants under his management. Now, in view of the countless modifications daily observable in the organs of plants—and especially in the _floral organs_—I can perceive no sufficient ground for declaring the changes, reported by MR. MEEHAN, to be “_utterly impossible_.” The modifications here referred to, are a very different thing from the alleged _transmutation of one kind to another_,—which is vulgarly supposed to take place in certain plants, just as the Alchemists formerly pretended was affected among the metals. They merely alter the texture, distort the