is not easily attributable to the ‘‘disruption’’ of a com- 
pound structure into its component parts. Weatherwax 
(16) regards ears branched at the tip as nothing more 
than anomalies ‘‘giving no more clue to the past than is 
afforded by Siamese twins.’” And now Reeves (15) has 
virtually committed to the category of reductio ad ab- 
surdum the argument for fusion based upon branching, 
when he points out that the two types of branching most 
commonly encountered in the ear, basal branching and 
bifurcation of the tip, have their counterparts in the stem, 
the first in the well-known basal tillering or ‘‘suckering’’ 
of the stalk, the second in the bifurcated stalks which he 
described (15). Reeves contends that if branching of the 
ear is regarded as evidence of its compound nature, then 
corresponding types of branching in the culm must be 
regarded as evidence that it, too, is a compound struc- 
ture resulting from fusion. 
Aside from branched ears, which upon close examina- 
tion obviously fail to support the fusion hypothesis, what 
is the evidence for fusion? Apparently there is none. 
W eatherwax (18) states that both the young ear and the 
young tassel develop from ordinary growing points and 
that there is nothing to suggest a compound nature. 
Bonnett’s studies (3) support this statement, although 
he does not specifically discuss the question of fusion. 
W eatherwax has observed (19) that the vascular bundles 
of the cob are distributed in approximately the same 
manner as those of the stem and therefore furnish no in- 
dication of fusion. Reeves (15) too, has made a detailed 
study of the vascular system and the arrangement of the 
rachis segments and finds no structural feature of any 
kind which suggests that the maize ear is the product 
of fusion. 
Weatherwax (16, 18, 19) seems to regard as the most 
critical evidence in conflict with the fusion theory, the 
[ 38 | 
