commonly but by no means rarely. Here one of the 
branches is asymmetrical with respect to the position of 
its spikelets. Were these three branches to fuse to pro- 
duce an ‘‘ear’’ it would be a ten-rowed ear for here the 
circumference bears only five rows of spikelets; the sixth 
is “*buried’’ in the cob. Its vestiges, if they remain at 
all, are not likely to be found on the surface. 
I do not intend to suggest that the ear of maize did 
actually originate from the fusion of two-ranked branches 
such as these of ‘Tripsacum, nor do I wish to explain the 
occurrence of ears with rows of paired spikelets in odd 
numbers as the result of the “‘burying’’ of a row of 
spikelets in the cob. It is very doubtful if the points at 
which the spikelets are to appear are so rigidly fixed in 
the undifferentiated primordium of the spike that its 
accidental disorientation could result in the suppression 
of an entire row of spikelets. On the other hand, if this 
is true, then it is probably also true that ears with pairs 
of spikelets in odd numbers are not necessarily inconsist- 
ent with the fusion hypothesis. For if we think of fusion 
in rigid terms, the joining during ontogeny of spikes each 
bearing the primordia of two ranks of paired spikelets, 
then the condition illustrated in Fig. 2b is a reasonable 
and valid explanation of how a row of paired spikelets 
might be lost without leaving clearly discernible vestiges. 
Add to this the fact that fusion of branches has actually 
been observed in maize and it becomes apparent that the 
possibility of fusion in the development of the maize ear 
cannot be dogmatically dismissed. Nevertheless the fu- 
sion hypothesis, in spite of the new evidence which may 
appear to support it, remains scarcely more satisfactory 
than it was before. 
Hybrids of Guarany Maize and Pod Corn 
The real nature of the ear of maize, at least of one type 
[ 49 ] 
