A CHRONICLE OF THE TRIBE OF CORN 225 



A CHRONICLE OF THE TRIBE OF CORN 1 



By Professor EDWARD M. EAST 



HARVARD UNIVERSITY 



ALEXANDRE DUMAS maintained that he weaved more history 

 into his romances than the contemporary chroniclers did into 

 their histories. Perhaps he did. At least the reader may lose himself 

 in the marvelously interesting fancies of the great Frenchman, and if 

 he gleans some points of fact they are gratuitous — features for which 

 he has not paid. But when he finds that his cherished enmity toward 

 Aaron Burr is founded on the fictions of political opponents, that the 

 reformation was largely politics and not ethics, he feels in much the 

 frame of mind as when in earlier days he was robbed of his belief in 

 Saint Nicolas. 



These statements are not intended as a libel on the political his- 

 torian. They serve only to defend the title of this article. The mod- 

 ern historian depends, first upon the records of writers contemporary 

 with the epoch under consideration, second, upon the corroboration or 

 refutation of these records by circumstantial evidence. The biological 

 historian uses precisely the same method. His contemporary records 

 are the records set down by the plants or animals themselves — auto- 

 biographies, as it were. He has this advantage over the transcriber of 

 written records, however, the plant autobiographies are true. There is 

 no boasting, no glossing of faults, no exaggeration. The transcriber 

 may misinterpret the record, but this is not the fault of the record. 

 He has but to read it aright. The written record, on the other hand, 

 may be false at the outset. 



The story of the birth and evolution of maize, the plant at the basis 

 of our national prosperity, is of interest not only to agriculturists and 

 botanists but to historians and philosophers, for it is one of the crops 

 whose cultivation is linked with the beginnings of civilization. It has 

 taken some years to fit the puzzle together, but now the gaps are but 

 few. Of course the proofs are not absolute. No proof is. But it may 

 be left to the judgment of the reader whether the case is beyond the 

 reasonable doubt of the lawyer. At least, it is typical of the reasoning 



1 An endeavor to trace the exact path of the evolution of maize is beset with 

 more difficulties than are indicated here. I agree with many of the conclusions 

 of both Montgomery and Collins, whose excellent researches have given us a 

 remarkable insight into the probable phylogenetic history of maize. I have 

 endeavored to present in this paper only the probable way in which certain 

 important jumps occurred, facts that might be supposed to be of more popular 

 interest than a strictly botanical discussion. 



VOL. LXXXLI. — 16. 



