be the cause of much concern’”’ (30), since the occurrence 
of teopod and corn grass is also infrequent. He is in error. 
The teopod character has appeared repeatedly in com- 
mercial hybrids and is recognized in the hybrid seed-corn 
industry as arecurring mutant. Corn grass has been found 
at least twice, according to published reports, and prob- 
ably many additional times. We know that one corn 
grass mutant was lost by being hoed out by laborers who 
thought it to be a weed. How often this has occurred 
there is no way of telling. In contrast, the mutation to 
pod corn has never been reported under circumstances 
where contamination could be ruled out. Millions of ears 
of inbred strains and their first-generation hybrids have 
now been studied by corn breeders, and no one has yet 
reported finding pod corn in a single one. 
(D). The contention that pod corn does not have the 
characteristics expected ina wild grass, especially a freely- 
branching habit, again overlooks the fact that modern 
pod corn is the product of a single gene superimposed 
upon highly domesticated varieties most of which are not 
themselves freely branching. Weatherwax, himself (27), 
pointed out many years ago that pod corn is not a vari- 
ety distinct from all others—that pod corn can be classi- 
fied as a flint, flour, dent, sweet, or popcorn. By the 
sume token, pod corn can become freely branching if the 
pod-corn gene is combined with the genes of a freely- 
branching form. This is well illustrated when pod corn 
is combined with freely-tillering varieties of popcorn (15). 
It is strikingly illustrated when it is combined with teo- 
sinte, an extremely freely-branching plant. 
(EK). The assertion that pod corn could not have existed 
in the wild is based, we believe, on the conception of pod 
corn as a monstrosity. Certainly the pod corn resulting 
from incorporating the 7’ gene in most varieties of mod- 
ern corn 1s not promising as a wild plant. However, some 
[ 338 ] 
