experimental evidence that mesocotyl growth is controlled by auxin originating in the coleoptile is contradictory, and further research is needed.The results of Iino and Caff (10) provide a reaffirmation of the classical concept of IAA production at the coleoptile tip. The mesocotyl, however, is unlikely to depend totally on the coleoptile tip for its IAA. The primary leaves, for instance, appear able to supply relatively large amounts of IAA (10). There is also a possibility that the mesocotyl receives some IAA in free (8,17,19) or conjugated (6, 15) form from the seed. Ifregulation ofmesocotyl growth by IAA is to continue to be regarded as an example of hormone-mediated growth correlations, it is necessary, at least, to show that the IAA reaches it from elsewhere in the seedling. The present study investigates the extent of the dependence of the maize mesocotyl on other parts of the seedling as sources of IAA.In 1928, Went (27) expressed the opinion that the growth of the mesocotyl is determined by a growth substance (later called auxin) which reached it from the tip of the coleoptile. This hypothesis was experimentally supported by van Overbeek,[23][24][25] who showed that inhibition of mesocotyl elongation due to a genetic factor (dwarfism) or external treatments, such as heat and light, is accompanied by a lower yield of diffusible auxin from the tip or the base of the coleoptile. He was also able to reverse the heatinduced inhibition by applying hetero-auxin (IAA) to the tip of the coleoptile (24). Went (27) and van Overbeek (24) cited Beyer's (3) finding, that decapitation of the oat coleoptile tip inhibits the mesocotyl elongation, in support of the hypothesis. With maize, a similar effect of decapitation was found by Inge and Loomis (12).Light-induced inhibition has been shown recently to be reversed by applied IAA (22).On the other hand, the auxin hypothesis has not always received support. Schneider (18), working on inhibition by light, concluded that 'if there is an indirect mechanism involving the mediation of another part of the plant, the mediation can hardly be by way of auxin.' Mer (13) also marshalled evidence from his many experiments to contradict the auxin hypothesis. The most striking evidence was the claim that decapitation of the coleoptile tip exerted no appreciable effect on the elongation of the oat mesocotyl, even though successive decapitations of the coleoptile were carried out to reduce the possibility of auxin production at the coleoptile stump, known (28) as 'regeneration of the physiological tip.' Dattary and Mer (5) further claimed to show that the effect of light or heat treatment on mesocotyl elongation is not accompanied by a fall in the auxin content of the mesocotyl. Thus, the ' Present address: