A similar comparison was made with the published 
material of Hough(2),(8). In this case there were thirty- 
three plants mentioned by Hough which are in the collee- 
tion under discussion. Seventeen of these have a different 
use. Only six plants appear in this collection which are 
mentioned in Stephen’s Journal (4). There is only one 
with a different recorded use. 
There is now available an excellent and unusually 
complete ‘Ethnobotany of the Hopi’? by Whiting (5), 
which may be very useful in comparing the present with 
the past uses of the same plants by members of this tribe. 
When the collection under discussion was subjected to 
this comparison, it was found that for the most part the 
uses agree. ‘here are only four discrepancies. It was 
found that Cortandrum sativum L. (introduced), Castil- 
leja linariaefolia Benth. and Artemisia frigida Willd. 
were formerly used as food or food adjuncts, and Suaeda 
Sruticosa (1...) Forskal was formerly applied in a different 
manner as a medicine. ‘This would seem to be indicative 
of arelatively stable knowledge of plant use over the past 
fifty years. However, the collection under discussion 
contains fifteen plant species not mentioned by Whiting, 
twelve of which were used as food and three as medicine. 
Does this mean that acculturation factors as well as a 
decreasing dependence upon agriculture have brought 
about an abandonment of certain natural resources pre- 
viously exploited? It would seem that this may be true. 
However, this transformation may have been caused in 
part by a modified flora resulting from overgrazing and 
soil erosion. In addition to the facts just noted, the col- 
lection under consideration contains information con- 
cerning plants which were not found by Whiting, but 
which were referred to by the earlier workers. 
Because of the difference in the recorded uses of the 
plants collected by Owens from the uses of the same 
[ 156 | 
