OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 179 



and mother and daughter if females. When run out in detail the relationships 

 are as follows : — 



My father's sister is my aunt, Be-Je'-me ; her son and daughter are my nephew 

 and niece, Be-c1iose' -kd and Be-cJw'-zho, each of them calling me micle ; and their 

 children are each my grandchild, Be-cliose' -pa, each of them calling me grandfather, 

 Be-clie'-go. With Etjo a female, my father's sister's son and daughter are my son 

 and daughter, Be-she'-gii and She-me'-she-ga, each of them calling me mother ; and 

 their children are my grandchildren, each of them calling me grandmother. 



My mother's brother is my uncle, Bc-ja'-ga, and calls me nephew; his son is my 

 uncle again, and calls me nephew ; and his descendants in the male line are severally 

 my uncles, theoretically, in an infinite series.^ My mother's brother's daughter is 

 my mother E'-naw, and calls me her son ; the son and daughter of this mother are 

 my brother and sister, elder or younger according to our relative ages, and they 

 address me by the correlative terms. The son and daughter of this collateral 

 brotlier are my son and daughter ; of this collateral sister my nephew and niece ; 

 and the children of each are my grandchildren. AVith Ego a female these rela- 

 tionships are the same, except that those who are sons and daughters are changed 

 to nephews and nieces, and those who are the latter are changed to the former. 



A mother's brother and his lineal male descendants are thus placed in a superior 

 relationship over her children with the authority the avunculine relationship implies 

 in Indian society. In its practical application the infant becomes the uncle of the 

 centenarian. 



The terms of relationship in the eight dialects of the Missouri nations are, for 

 the most part, the same words under dialectical changes ; and, masmuch as the 

 system of the several nations is identical, it follows that both the terms and the 

 system were derived by each nation from the common source of the language. The 

 system can also claim an antiquity coeval with the period when these nations were 

 a sincrle people. It has also been made evident that the system of the Missouri, 

 the Dakota, and the Iroquois nations is identical. 



With respect to the relationship of cousin, it will become more and more appa- 

 rent, as the investigation progresses, that it was unknown in the primitive system 

 of the Ganowanian family. It seems to have been developed at a later day, by the 

 more advanced nations, to remove a blemish in the system and to improve its sym- 

 metry. All the nations which have advanced to a knowledge of this relationship 

 have restricted it in every instance, to the children of a brother and sister ; thus 

 showing, as we have previously seen in the system of the Aryan family, that if it 



' Of the actual existence and daily recognition of these relationships, as stated, novel as they are, 

 there is uo doubt whatever. I first discovered this deviation from the typical form while working out 

 the system of the Kaws in Kansas in 1859. The Kaw chief from whom I obtained it, through a 

 perfectly competent interpreter, insisted upon the verity of these relationships against all doubts and 

 questionings ; and when the work was done I found it proved itself through the correlative relation- 

 ships. Afterwards in 1860, while at the Iowa reservation in Nebraska, I had an opportunity to test 

 it fully, both in Iowa and Otoe, through White Cloud a native Iowa well versed in English. While 

 discussing these relationships he pointed out a boy near us, and remarked that be was his uncle, and 

 the son of his mother's brother who was also his uncle. 



