characters which he contends are stable and of generic 
value. He recognizes also that their cytogenetical rela- 
tionships really approach those of a single species. He 
reaches the somewhat conflicting conclusions that the 
characters by which corn and teosinte differ are generic ; 
but that teosinte is maintaining its identity as a ‘‘good 
species.’” His statement that corn and teosinte are more 
distinct entities than many other genera of the grass 
family is vague, and he offers no examples of such gen- 
era. Numerous examples are on record of separate genera 
comprising certain species which are scarcely distinct. 
To mention only one such case: Fisher, Bashaw and 
Holt (15) found Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link and Cench- 
rus setigerus Vahl. to be nearly or quite inseparable by 
either morphological or cytological characters and sug- 
gested that the forms examined belong to a single agamic 
complex, but by no means did they indicate satisfaction 
with the present taxonomic status of this group. It may 
be safely stated that plant taxonomists generally are dis- 
satisfied with the classification of such groups. The reason 
why solutions have not yet been offered for these confus- 
ing complexes is that they have not been worked out. 
Various degrees of approval of the consolidation of 
Zea and Euchlaena have been brought to our attention, 
although we have not canvassed the literature for ex- 
amples of this. Sharp (45) reviews the salient facts and 
states: ‘‘This indicates a degree of cytological and ge- 
netical similarity unusually high for plants assigned to 
different genera.’” Stebbins (47) refers to teosinte as Zea 
(Euchlaena) mexicana, and Celarier (8) takes a strong 
position that the transfer is justified. Rollins (43), after 
reviewing the evidence relative to this problem, states 
that the two groups are congeneric and that Reeves and 
Mangelsdorf have rightly transferred Muchlaena to Zea. 
Darlington (12) goes even further and insists that Zea 
[ 380 | 
