March 27, 1972

Ing. T. Angel Kato Y.
Centro International de
Megoramiento de Malz y Trigo
Londres 40, Mexico 6, 33.B.

Dear Kato:

   Your letter and enclosure of Haroh 16 was received.   I
delayed commenting on material you sent to me earlier as I
recognized that adequate comments would require an extensive
literature search on my part.   Conclusions that may be drawn
from knob data should be compfred with those drawn from other
studies.  The knob data clearly reveal degrees of relationship
of strains of maize.  In some instances it is necessary to
relate our explanatory accounts of relationehips with those based
on well authenticated anthropological and historical studies.
This is in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts. As an example,
potential conflict could arise from conjectures based solely on
knob studies of the maize of Indian tribes fn Oklahoma.  *The
hiStory of these tribes both before and after the arrival of
the Europeans will show why this is so.

   During the past century, Indian tribes from the north, the
east, ani the Southeast sections of ths 3.2. were pushed into
Oklahoma by the white man,   idhen I was a child going to school7
Arizona, New Mexico,  and Oklahoma were not States,
called "Indian Territories."               hey were
                       The tribes in Arizona and flew
Mexico remained relatively undisturbed by the white man.   Most
of thoee in Oklahoma, however, were forced into this territory
by the white man,   k brief summary of the history of several
of th8Se tribes will indicate why the knob situation among the
tribes of Oklahoma appears So complex.   The Kiowa, &:;calero,
and Luai tribes are the only once that came to Oklahoma from the
southwest, and they were not pushed there by the white mano
The other tribersr came from elsewhere.   For example,  the Cherokee
tribe originally was spread over a wide area to the east of
Oklahoma.  On the knob map, representatives of this tribe are
placed not only in Oklahoma but also in North Carolina.   The
Cheyenne tribe was pushed south from North Daketa by the Sioux
Indians and then the tribe Separated into two branches, one
going into Arkansas.   This branch probably is the one represented
on our map.   The Shawnee (the name means 'qsouthern'f) were
origi:-ially from Ohio but they went south into Georgia, Texas,
and Oklahoma.   The &minoleS were origii-;ally from Georgia but
they were forced into Southern Florida (one group) and into
Oklahoma (another group) by the white main.   iind so it goes for
all other tribes in Oklahoma.   The knob studies show that these
tribes must hclve brou&ht their maize with them as they nigrsted.


This is strikingly illustrated by the ki:obs in maize of the Apache-
related Kiowa and Mescalero tribes.   They are the same as those
in maize colleoted from the tribes in .trizona and New Mexico.
again, the knobs in the &iii maize of h'ortll Dakota relate to
those in maize of the southwest.  AS far as Oklahoma is coficerned,
maize was brought into its territory from all directions.   This
knowledge gives a reason for the diverse knob colstitutians that
you discovered in the maize of this region.  It also helps in
projecting the knob constitutions of the !;orthern Flints.
   Conclusions on the origin of maize in the southern-eastern
part of the U.S. also can be supported by conp:irative studies.
Again, relationships based on knob constitutions are in good
agreement with those based on morphological characters.  The
morphological characters were outlined in a paper by Bill Drown
and Edgar Ande-son thut appeared in the Annals of the Missc~iri
Bottnical Garden (vol. 35, pages 255-268, 1948).   They relate
Gourdseed and rjhoepeg to lepitilla in Mexico.  They place Tuxpan,
Jellicorse, rand Mexican June within one complex which they call
the Mexican June Complex" and relate the morphological characters
of this complex to those of maize grown in Central Mexico.
Hickory King they place in a separate category, ststi:lg that it
resembles the Mexican rice, Tabloncillo.   They also recognized
that the Dent maize in the southeastern p:irt of the U..;. had been
mixed with the Northern Flir,ts which, in turn, resemble mtize grown
in the highlands of Guatemala.  All of thLs fits nicelTyhu;ith
knob types and their distributions in these strains.        the
previous co:::meroial, open-pollinated, so ithern dent maize &rieties
collected by Bill Brown, represent a mixture of germplasma derived
from different sourcest the Gulf Coast region (the TuspeEo complex),
the Central Mexico area (?epitilla, Tabloncillo, and possibly other
sources) and the Northern ?lints, originating probably from the
highlands of Gucitemala or possibly from the Central l.iexican
highlands.
   Xn order to cor_lment with colifidence on your Bebruary 11
enclosure to me,  which co::siders the Central An,rica-Caribbean
area, I felt obliged to reorganize the data given to us in
Jnnuary by Blumenschein.  This became a l::rger task than initially
considered.   It soon became apparent that the data from all of
South America needed to be reorganized.  This task is not yet
completed.  Nevertheless, already it ha s allowed soze i:-iteresting
correlations to be made that otherwise might hzve been obscured.
Later I will send some of tilis ihfornation to you.  It is evident
that ran understanding of the Caribbean region reqtA,res detttiled
inform:ltion not only on knob distributions but also on other
aspezta.  There is now a fair amount of information derived from
archeological and hi8torical studies.   In all respects, the
Caribbean region is complex.  It is the region that both divides
and integrates two basically different original types of agricultural
materials and methods.
  There is another difficulty th2t complicates interpret,:tions
of khob CO!:stitutio:.:s of maize In the Caribbean area.   Data from
Gentral Bneriua and the Islands are given in 'qplr$nts*t where,ls those
from other regi:.bns a 'e given in '~chror~oso;::es.'S   This makes it
imPossible to make aCc:~rate Ccmp,trisons bet.Ejesn these rei;iQns or even


within the Central hm<:rioan and Island area9 on a quantitative
basis.   Comparisons based on qualitative analyses do allow
quite valid conclusiL.ns.  I am only corruesned that oare be taken
in nriking oonjeoturea based on tlplantrt datn.

   In your letter of Earth 16 you asked my opinion of the
possibility of having Blumenscheln*s data tables typed in Mexico.
If this type is to be used in both publications--yours and
Blumenschein's
for them.    --then I see no reason why you should not aek him
       If they are ready for typing,he could send them
directly to you.

  The motion of your report on Geographical Regions was very
well done.   That on Materialsand Method8 also is well done. I
have not yet had time to study oarefully the section on Result8
that arrived more recently.   I will do this as soon as opportunity
E ermite and send comments to you.   This may take several week8 as
must be at Cornell University for a period of one or two weeks
beginning in a few days from now.

   Thank you for sending me a number that I might use to
telephone to you.  I had hoped to receive sore word from either
Roberts or Jellhausen about your situation.  They may not cor;sider
it necessary to colztact me again.  If you h.ive not h%d any word
from tiellhausen let me know and I will telephone to Roberts again.

Sincerely,

Barbara McClintock