🚀 go-pugleaf

brianm@ims.com (Brian McLaughlin) writes:

>In article <717gjs$qp3$3@whisper.globalserve.net>, yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
>|> Jonathan Stone (jonathan@Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU) wrote on 27 Oct 1998 22:31:11 GMT:
>|> : In article <715c2s$fh9$2@nnews.ims.com>, brianm@ims.com (Brian McLaughlin) writes:
>|> 
>|> : |> I still say that kernals, husks and cornsilk would yield a
>|> : |> complete identification as maize. I have yet to see these
>|> : |> three elements, but I will try to hunt up the publications
>|> : |> you mentioned.
>|> 
>|> : There is also the question of how the beading pattern changes as the
>|> : object narrows at the top. doe the number of beads stay relatively
>|> : consant but shrink in size, or do they stay about the same size but
>|> : reduce in number?  [...]

Johannessen and Parker's Feature #15 (_Economic Botany_ 1989)
is that the sculpted kernels are typically smaller at the tip than
at the middle or base.  This shows up in several of their pictures,
many of which are scanned on Yuri's page
  http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/dif/wmzpix.htm

Their Feature #16 is that "At least once, the upper fifth of the 'ear's 
kernels' are tiny, as if the 'kernels' were undeveloped."

This tendency toward smaller kernels at the tip is interesting, and
may tell us something about the variety of maize being depicted.
In a couple of ears of decorative "[American] Indian Corn" I have 
around the house, I notice that the kernels stay the same size
throughout, but that some of the rows disappear toward the end
as the cob tapers down in order to accomodate the smaller 
diameter.  

>Yuri, I *did* go to your web site.  I *did* look at the pictures you
>have posted there - on a high resolution monitor on a Sun workstation.
>I could *not* see anything in the pictures that I could possibly
>identify as cornhusks or cornsilk in those scanned photos.

The resolution of your monitor just indicates how small you can
make an image with given pixel dimensions appear on screen,
but does not alter the resolution of the image.  

>The quality of your scanned images was so poor that I did *not*
>say in my article that the images had no husks or silk, only
>that I was unable to identify husks or silk, and hoped that the
>quality of the other published images Hu cited was sufficient
>to allow me to see what is, or is not, there in the way of husks or
>silk. 

Johannessen's color pictures that I link to at
 www.economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/maize.html
are much clearer than Yuri's. Yuri's are scanned out of the _Economic
Botany_ article, where a lot of resolution has already been lost,
not to mention their original color.  But unfortunately, none of 
the ones I link shows the "silk" curls.   I've tried to urge Johannessen
to scan some more color photos directly for us, but he's been busy
raising peas and giving talks.   I suggest you invite him out for 
a slide show! 

>I repeat, if even *one* of the images can be dated to pre-Columbian
>time, and clearly shows an ear of maize with rows of kernals, a
>husk, and cornsilk, I will accept the existance of maize in pre-Columbian
>India, however implausible that appears to me at present.

[snip]
>Brian McLaughlin, Technical Writer  |"Thanks to the Internet, misinformation
>Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.| now travels faster than ever before!" 
>Beaverton, OR, USA                  | ---- Standard disclaimer applies ----

How far is Beaverton from Eugene?  Maybe you could drive over and have
him show you his pix!

-- Hu McCulloch
   http://www.economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html