times as rapid in one period as in another. The difficulty 
is rendered more acute by the necessity of assuming that 
differentiation has been more rapid in the tetraploids 
than in the diploids. Few serious students of evolution 
will accept this premise. 
In our opinion, the taxonomically distinct, wild, en- 
demic, tetraploid cotton of Hawaii presents, for the 
moment at least, an insuperable obstacle to the accep- 
tance of the conclusions of Hutchinson, Silow and 
Stephens. The case for the trans-Pacific, pre-Columbian 
diffusion of Old World cultivated cottons is no better, 
in our opinion, than the case for an Asiatic origin or pre- 
Columbian diffusion of maize. To use the one as evidence 
in support of the other, is to assume that two guesses 
have, through some strange alchemy, a greater validity 
than one. 
Conclusion 
We can find nothing in either the botanical or ethno- 
graphic evidence presented by Stonor and Anderson on 
Assamese maize to justify their conclusion that maize 
must either have originated in Asia or been taken there 
in pre-Columbian times. The maize itself is not unique, 
since it resembles the living varieties of Colombia and 
thus conforms to the general rule that all Old-World 
maize has its counterparts somewhere in America. The 
uses to which maize is put in Assam are exactly those 
to which one would expect such a cereal to be put when 
introduced into Asia, and there are no other special cir- 
cumstances about its utilization, or the traditions con- 
nected with it, which indicate a great antiquity in 
Asia. The fact that maize, if introduced into Asia in 
post-Columbian times, must have been rapidly accepted 
by backward people, merely indicates that, like the po- 
tato in Ireland, it met an acute and pressing need. Cer- 
[ 288 ] 
