Teosinte and I go back more than 50 years. As a college junior I read The Origin of Indian Corn and realized we knew little about the natural history of teosinte (distribution, population differences, and frequency of hybridization with maize). These findings were the basis of my thesis published a decade later and to my pleasure has remained very durable. Latin binomial nomenclature has been applied to the distinct populations but this has done little to change our understanding of teosinte natural history.

My thesis, Teosinte – The Closest Relative of Maize, made P.C. Mangelsdorf realize that teosinte was more than an obligate weed and anecophyte artifact. This was the first crack in the Mangelsdorf tripartite hypothesis. The second crack centers around the teosinte mutation hunt lead by George Beadle in the early 1970s. The seed from this hunt in the Balsas region of the Guerrero, Mexico has been deposited in the USDA/ Ames maize gene bank, is available for research, and possesses great potential for population genetics study because this has packets of hundreds of seed, one seed per plant. These collections were the seed source used for the classic work of John Doebley. I personally doubt the region around Teloloapan Guerrero is the location of maize domestication. Rather the significant genes for domestication were still present in this teosinte population because it was the largest population remaining. A more likely location for domestication would be near the southern extension of Balsas teosinte (Zea mays ssp parviglumis) and this is testable using DNA from archaeological teosinte from Guila Naquitz, Oaxaca.

The third crack to expose the secrets of teosinte was accomplished by those here in the forum: Hugh Iltis (taxonomy and evolution), Angel Kato (chromosome knobs and evolution), Major Goodman (genetics of landraces), Suketoshi Taba (gene banking) and lastly, Jesus Sanchez for the most complete knowledge base we have for teosinte.