WEATHERWAX: THE ANCESTRY OF MAIZE 20 
The primitive characters of the maize plant might cause some 
difficulty in connection with any theory to the effect that maize 
descended from teosinte itself or from some plant much like teo- 
sinte; but probably no one at present gives serious consideration 
to any such theory. In descending directly from a primitive 
ancestor, the plant need not have made equal progress in all re- 
spects, and a combination of highly specialized characters with 
others relatively simple would be expected. Probably no one ap- 
preciates more fully than does the systematist the significance of 
this principle. 
The weakest spot in the hypothesis of the hybrid origin of Zea 
lies in the fact that pod corn has not been shown to be essentially 
different from ordinary corn except in the possession of enlarged 
bracts and of functional pistils in the tassel. In Collins’s argu- 
ment, pod corn has no exact identity. Sometimes it has ears, 
and sometimes it is earless. He seems to have selected from all 
the characteristics possessed by this ill-defined variety those tend- 
ing to uphold his hypothesis. Kempton admits as much (p. 7) 
when he attributes the presence of buds in the axils of the leaves of 
pod corn to the recent origin of this variety from ordinary corn. 
The problem for which they offer no solution involves a means of 
distinguishing the characters of the orthodox podded type—one 
of the hypothetical ancestors of Zea, according to their view— 
from other characters received from ordinary maize by this recent 
mutant. It is true that the hybrid-origin hypothesis itself will 
distinguish them, but, when we apply it, we find ourselves dealing 
in circular logic. It is generally admitted that the podded types 
now in existence are recent mutations rather than original forms; 
but our criterion for the regressive nature of some of their charac- 
teristics is in the character of the grasses held to be closely related 
to maize. 
The idea of the hybrid origin of maize has had the misfortune 
to be based upon a hypothesis not substantiated by subsequently 
discovered facts. It has never been very enthusaistically accepted 
by botanists in general, because it seems unreasonable and taxes 
the imagination unnecessarily. It has had its good effect in pro- 
moting further investigation, but it has run its course and has been - 
found wanting." 
