Consequently our original interpretation of the ceramic 
specimen as possibly representing pod corn still seems to 
us more plausible than Weatherwax’s. 
W eatherwax’s suggestion is, however, quite useful in 
raising an entirely different question. Why are non- 
tunicate ears with pointed, imbricated kernels common 
in Peru and other countries of Latin America (6, 22, 82, 
34) and why are they even more common in archaeologi- 
cal specimens and in prehistoric ceramic replicas (17, 80, 
35, 36)? 
One answer to this question—the correct one we sus- 
pect—is that pointed, imbricated kernels represent, as 
does pod corn, an ancient, relict, wild character which 
still persists in cultivated corn especially in certain Peru- 
vian races. We know that kernels of modern pod corn 
are often pointed; they are squeezed into this shape 
during their development by the pressure of glumes. 
Indeed, when occurring in the tassels, if they fail to be- 
come pointed through pressure, they spread the glumes 
apart thus inviting the depredations of insects and birds. 
Such a characteristic would have a low survival value in 
nature. Consequently, we are forced to assume that, al- 
though the kernels of wild pod corn were pointed, this 
shape was determined in part genetically and not alone 
by pressure applied during development, as is also the 
case in the kernels of corn’s relatives, Tripsacum and 
teosinte. When the tunicate character was lost through 
mutation the pointed, imbricated grains persisted for a 
time and are still found widely distributed in some vari- 
eties. They are, however, less common now than they 
were prehistorically and are probably destined to disap- 
pear completely, since they have no apparent survival 
value. 
Here is an excellent example of the usefulness of con- 
troversy. By raising doubts about our conclusions on the 
[ 344 ] 
