panicles in various stages of reduction to the spicate form on numerous 
branches. The small ears, with eight or more rows of grain, were 
partly enclosed in the leaf sheaths, and the small grains were partly 
enclosed in the bracts of the spikelets. 
How are we to account for the close resemblance be- 
tween Weatherwax’s hypothetical and our genetically 
reconstructed ancestral form? Weatherwax has assumed 
that the nature of corn’s progenitor could be deduced 
from a study of the characteristics of its living descend- 
ants and relatives. We have assumed that genes control- 
ling the principal characteristics of wild corn are not likely 
to have been completely lost in several thousand genera- 
tions of domestication; that they still exist in cultivated 
varieties; and that the ancestral form can be recon- 
structed by recombining them. The fact that the two 
methods produce essentially the same end result is either 
aremarkable coincidence or an indication that both meth- 
ods are valid and that the picture of corn’s ancestor which 
both produce may be a reasonably accurate one. 
SUMMARY 
The evidence for and against the pod-corn theory has 
been reviewed; the principal objections to it have been 
considered; and plausible answers to all of them have 
been found in the evidence now at hand. 
1. Pod corn is ‘‘equivocal’’ only when its genetic back- 
ground is variable. In inbred strains or in uniform F, 
hybrids the pod character is no more variable than other 
characteristics of the plant. 
2. Modern pod corn is often monstrous and sometimes 
sterile because it is the product of an ancient relict gene 
superimposed upon highly heterozygous, vigorous mod- 
ern varieties. It is neither monstrous nor sterile when 
combined with other primitive characters. 
[ 351 ] 
