It is unfortunate, we think, that Weatherwax’s errone- 
ous statement, which reflects upon the accuracy of the 
artist, has never been corrected, although there have 
been several opportunities in subsequent publications for 
doing so. 
The basis for skepticism regarding the tunicate nature 
of other prehistoric specimens which we have described 
as weak forms of pod corn is little if any better. It is 
true that only a few prehistoric specimens resembling 
modern pod corn have been found (8, 11), but this is not, 
in any case, the kind of pod corn that we should expect 
to find commonly among prehistoric specimens. If mod- 
ern pod corn is monstrous because it has lost its modi- 
fiers, then prehistoric pod corn, not so far removed from 
wild corn, should be a more restrained form. As men- 
tioned above, Mangelsdorf (13) has shown that some of 
the prehistoric corn of Peru has glumes similar to those 
occurring in heterozygous, half-tunicate modern maize. 
More recently, we have discovered (15) in a variety of 
popcorn a major inhibitor of the tunicate character and 
it has been possible by combining this gene with the 7% 
and tu’ genes to synthesize a wide range of types match- 
ing many of the prehistoric specimens. We know of no 
other way in which such matching specimens can be 
synthesized. 
The question of whether or not the prehistoric corn 
with relatively long glumes and slender rachises is pod 
corn finally becomes little more than an exercise in se- 
mantics. Randolph, for example, states (20): 
It is difficult to see in these specimens of the most ancient cultivated 
maize thus far discovered, or in the existing wild relatives of maize, 
any support for the hypothesis that maize originated from a primitive 
type of pod corn of the sort that is known to be controlled by the 
dominant Ju allele in chromosome 4 of maize. 
And Weatherwax, in commenting upon the possible 
[ 346 ] 
