WEATHERWAX: THE EVOLUTION OF MAIZE 327 
Origin of the ear.—Most of the attempts to explain the struc- 
ture and origin of the ear of corn have been based upon Hackel’s 
idea (16, p. 20) that it has resulted from the union of several 
organs like the lateral branches of the tassel. Harshberger at 
first supported this theory (17, pp. 75-83); after describing the 
ear and some of its teratological variations, he says: ‘‘These 
structural and teratological arrangements point to the probable 
union of several spikes into a thick, fleshy axis, with grains on the 
circumference, each paired row limited at the sides by a long, 
shallow furrow, a row corresponding to a single spike of Euchlaena 
or Tripsacum.”’ Gernert (14, p. 37) agrees with Harshberger in 
support of the fasciation theory and gives some additional evi- 
dences, most of which, however, are irrelevant or obviously open 
to objection. Mrs. Kellerman (22) and Montgomery (24) object 
to this theory and point out that the ear is the homologue of the 
central spike of the tassel; and later (20, p. 51) Harshberger 
apparently agrees with the former. Collins (9, p. 525) removes 
all doubt of this homology and shows that the central spike of 
the tassel is as anomalous and as much in need of explanation as 
is the ear. He thinks it probable that both have resulted from 
fasciation. One of the latest discussions of the structure of the 
ear is that given by Worsdell (28, p. 58). Due to a special defini- 
tion of terms, he does not call this a case of fasciation; but, as 
the following statement indicates, he is in accord with most of 
the others in his interpretation of the structure and origin of the 
ear: “It consists of the fusion of numerous spikes with flattened 
rachis, each bearing two rows of female spikelets, to form the thick 
female inflorescence usually termed the ‘cob.’” (The word 
“cob” is a misnomer; he is evidently talking about an ear.) A 
new term, “disruption,” is proposed to cover the abnormality, 
which ‘‘consists in the appearance of a ‘cob’ as a copiously- 
branched paniculate inflorescence, closely resembling, in its ex- 
treme form, the male inflorescence; and is due to the dissolution 
of the compound organ into its separate parts.” 
In spite of the apparent consistency of this widely accepted 
theory of the formation of the ear, it is untenable at least in its 
present form. There can be-no reasonable doubt of the homology 
between the ear and the central spike of the tassel. Ears termin- 
