EDS lg _ ee 
1906] CURRENT LITERATURE 303 
state will doubtless always be an interesting subject for speculation. The most 
satisfactory hypothesis for the origin of maize, and that which has been until 
this time rather generally accepted, derives it from the teosinte (Euchlaena). 
It has been thought that the ear was formed by an abnormal coalescence of 
the pistillate spikes of that plant. The ease with which maize and teosinte 
may be crossed gives strong support to the theory that they are nearly related. 
An altogether different view of the origin of the pistillate spike of maize is 
presented by MonrGomERy’® and much evidence is given in its support. His 
ypotheses are that the ear of corn is the homologue of the central spike 
of the staminate inflorescence; and that the progenitor of maize was a much 
branched plant, bearing only terminal branched inflorescences of bisporan- 
giate flowers. The chief support of these hypotheses is derived from abnormal 
development of pistillate and bisporangiate flowers in the staminate inflores- 
cence, and vice versa. A number of photographs show these abnormalities 
and jig. 74 represents a plant, denuded of its leaves, showing that the same num- 
ber of internodes intervene between the central axis and the ear as are found 
between the ear and the tassel. Nothing in this new interpretation of the pistil- 
late spike of maize need lessen the conviction of its near relationship with Eu- 
chlaena.—GerorcE H. SHULL. 
The laws of inheritance —CorrENsS*' published a lecture on the laws 
of inheritance which presents in a very satisfactory manner the recent advances 
which have been made in this discipline. He would include in hybridization 
every union between two germ-cells having one or more different character- 
The laws of dominance and of the purity of the parental gametes are illus- 
trated from his own experiments on Urtica, Mirabilis, and Zea, and emphasis 
is given to the fact that these two laws are absolutely unrelated to each other, 
and that reference to them jointly as Mendel’s Law is ing. 
Latency is considered at some length, but the present state of knowledge 
of this subject leaves much to be desired. He makes a proper distinction between 
latency in the sense of invisibility, and frue latency in which there is actual inac- 
tivity of a unit that may be changed at times from a passive to an active state. 
Regarding the relation between MENDEL’s and GALTON’sS laws, he holds with 
DARBISHIRE,"? that both are correct and the antagonism only apparent, due 
to the different manipulation of the data. 
CorRens still maintains that sex is fundamentally unlike the unit-characters 
which behave in accord with MENDEL’s laws. Touching on xenia and tel- 
10 Montcomery, E. G., What is an ear of corn? Popular Sci. Monthly 68: 
55-62. jigs. - Jan. 1906. 
11 CORRENS, C., Ueber basi et gn 8vo. pp. 43. figs. 4. Berlin: Gebr. 
Borntraeger. 1905. 
2 DARBISHIRE, A. D., On the supposed antagonism of Mendelian to biometric 
ari of heredity. Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Philos. Soc. 49. no. 6. 
1905- 19 pp- 
