Economic Botany

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 187–203 | Cite as

Variation within teosinte. I. Numerical analysis of morphological data

  • J. S. C. Smith
  • M. M. Goodman
  • R. N. Lester


Principal components analysis of 27 morphological characters for 18 accessions of teosinte and 3 accessions of maize separated teosinte into 6 phenetic groups which showed broad agreement with previous taxonomic groupings. Tests for regression suggested significant linear relationships with altitude; teosintes from higher elevations are generally more maize-like for a combination of characters. Introgression from maize may have blurred racial identities within teosinte, but variation among current teosinte accessions cannot be satisfactorily explained solely on the basis of known maize introgression. It appears instead that racial differentiation in teosinte was well established by the time of the domestication of maize. While current racial classification of teosinte is quite useful, it does not adequately reflect the amount of genetic variation, nor does it accurately portray many of the relationships within teosinte.


Maize Economic Botany Main Stem Central Plateau Tassel Branch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Beadle, G. W. 1978. Teosinte and the origin of maize.In Maize Breeding and Genetics, D. B. Walden, ed. Wiley, N.Y.Google Scholar
  2. Bird, R. McK. 1978. A name change for Central American teosinte. Taxon 27: 361–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewbaker, J. L. 1979. Diseases of maize in the wet lowland tropics and the collapse of the classic Maya civilization. Econ. Bot. 33: 101–118.Google Scholar
  4. Galinat, W. C. 1971. The origin of maize. Annual Rev. Genet. 5: 447–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. —. 1973. Preserve Guatemalan teosinte, a relict link in corn’s evolution. Science 180: 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. —. 1978. The inheritance of some traits essential to maize and teosinte.In Maize Breeding and Genetics, D. B. Walden, ed. Wiley, N.Y.Google Scholar
  7. — 1972. Distance analysis in biology. Syst. Zool. 21: 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. —. 1978. History and origin of corn.In Melhoramento e Producão do Milho no Brasil, E. Paterniani, ed. Fundacao Cargill, Piracicaba, S.P., Brazil.Google Scholar
  9. Guzman, R. M. 1978. Redescubrimiento deZea perennis (Gramineae). Phytologia 38: 177.Google Scholar
  10. Hitchcock, A. S. 1922. A perennial species of teosinte. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 12: 205–208.Google Scholar
  11. Iltis, H. H., and J. F. Doebley. 1980. Taxonomy ofZea (Gramineae). II. Subspecific categories in theZea mays complex and a generic synopsis. Amer. J. Bot. 67: 994–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. —,———, R. M. Guzman, and B. Pazy. 1979.Zea diploperennis (Gramineae): A new teosinte from Mexico. Science 203: 186–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kato Y., T. A. 1976. Cytological studies of maize (Zea mays L.) and teosinte (Zea mexicana (Schräder) Kuntze) in relation to their origin and evolution. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. No.635.Google Scholar
  14. Lorenzo, J. L., and L. G. Quintero. 1970. El mas antiguo teosinte. Inst. Nac. Antropol. Hist. Bol. 42: 41–43.Google Scholar
  15. Mangelsdorf, P. C. 1974. Corn, Its Origin, Evolution and Improvement. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Melhus, I. E., and I. M. Chamberlain. 1953. A preliminary study of teosinte in its region of origin. Iowa State Coll. J. Sci. 28: 139–164.Google Scholar
  17. Randolph, L. F. 1976. Contributions of wild relatives of maize to the evolutionary history of domesticated maize: A synthesis of divergent hypotheses I. Econ. Bot. 30: 321–345.Google Scholar
  18. -. n.d. Contributions of wild relatives of maize to the evolutionary history of domesticated maize. A synthesis of different hypotheses II. (In preparation).Google Scholar
  19. Smith, J. S. C. 1977. Biochemical systematic studies ofZea, Tripsacum and related genera. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar
  20. -, M. M. Goodman, and T. A. Kato Y. n.d. (a). Variation within teosinte. II. Numerical analysis of chromosome knob data. Econ. Bot.Google Scholar
  21. -,-, and C. W. Stuber. n.d. (b). Variation within teosinte. III. Numerical analysis of isozyme data. (In preparation).Google Scholar
  22. Timothy, D. H., C. S. Levings III, D. R. Pring, M. F. Conde, and J. L. Kermicle. 1979. Organelle DNA variation and systematic relationships in the genusZea: Teosinte. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76: 4220–4224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wellhausen, E. J., L. M. Roberts, and E. Hernandez X. 1952. Races of Maize in Mexico. Bussey Inst., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Wilkes, H. G. 1967. Teosinte; the closest relative of maize. Bussey Inst., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  25. —. 1970. Teosinte introgression in the maize of the Nobogame valley. Bot. Mus. Leaft. Harvard Univ. 22: 297–311.Google Scholar
  26. —. 1972. Genetic erosion in teosinte. PL Genetic Resources Newslett. 28: 3–10.Google Scholar
  27. —. 1977. Hybridization of maize and teosinte in Mexico and Guatemala and the improvement of maize. Econ. Bot. 31: 254–293.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. S. C. Smith
    • 1
  • M. M. Goodman
    • 2
  • R. N. Lester
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of StatisticsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  3. 3.Department of Plant BiologyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations