kempton: ancestry of .maize 5 



as 'one rowed' is equally misleading." In looking for this 

 reference I have succeeded in finding only the following, which 

 appears as a footnote on page 525 and not as a part of a de- 

 scription of this genus: "As might be expected theoretically 

 the early generation of the hybrids between single-rowed teosinte 

 and double-rowed maize occasionally result in an odd number of 

 rows. Well formed ears with 3, 5, 7 and 9 rows have already 

 been observed in such hybrids." Without the context the 

 distinction between "single-rowed" and "one-rowed" may seem 

 slight, but when contrasted with the double or paired rows of 

 maize it is difficult to understand how the meaning could have 

 been perv^erted. 



The major part of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the 

 relative merits of the several theories of the origin of maize, 

 and the conclusion is reached that maize developed by simple 

 evolution from a grass somewhat similar to the Andropogoneae. 

 While this solution is not new, organological evidence is con- 

 tributed which the author beheves affords it additional support. 

 In reaching his conclusions it w^ould seem that Weatherwax has 

 overlooked some important considerations and misinterpreted 

 others, and it may be well, therefore, to examine his evidence 

 somewhat in detail. 



The author has found organological evidence of the perfect- 

 flowered nature of all spikelets of the genera Zea, Euchlaena, and 

 Tripsacum, a fact which satisfactorily accounts for the true- 

 breeding perfect-flowered races of Zea but does not explain the 

 infrequency with which such flowers are found in Tripsacum and 

 Euchlaena. If well developed perfect flowers are ever found 

 in the pistillate inflorescences of Euchlaena or Tripsacum, they 

 occur very rarely and may not be compared with their relatively 

 normal development in Zea. The importance of this disparity 

 in the frequency of perfect-flowered variations should not be 

 overlooked in determining whether Zea or Euchlaena is the 

 more primitive type. 



In indicating the evolution of these genera, the author has 

 recorded the changes that have taken place and has constructed 

 a seemingly plausible sequence of events which may prove mis- 



