🚀 go-pugleaf

My name is Robert Thompson. I have been working with teosinte samples, 
extracting phytoliths from teosinte fruitcases. I have been successful in 
building a database of known samples (100 phytoliths from each sample are 
described in detail). I have been successful in working backwards from 
blind samples to the teosintes from which they originated.

I recently did a blind test on an assemblage of phytoliths which 
statistically identified as Zea mays parviglumis. However, I was informed 
that the sample from which I extracted the phytoliths was Ames 21890, 
identified as Zea diploperrenis. I repeated the process and again the 
phytolith assemblage was typical of that from Zea mays parviglumis.

I then decided to try to increase my sample of Zea d. I discovered that 
Ames 21890 was given me by Mary Eubanks when I was building my database, 
but I had not run it. When I created phytolith assemblages from that sample 
I found that they matched the results of the two blind tests, and rather 
than being similar to two other Zea d samples Ames 21890 produced an 
assemblage identical to those from Zea mays parviglumis.

Has anyone else worked with that particular accession, and if so did it 
appear to be Zea d or Zea mays parviglumis, as I suspect?

I would ask for material from that accession from North Central, but the 
accession has been removed from availability.

If anyone has 5 or 6 fruitcases left from that accession, I would like to 
see if it again appears to be parviglumis, or if there may have been some 
human error involved.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help with this.

Bob Thompson
Archaeobiology Lab
Anthropology Department 
University of Minnesota
395 Hubert H. Humphrey Hall
319 S. 19th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55455