240 SYSTEMS OF CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



the last, beyond brother and sister. As the answers in most cases are single, and 

 limited to the elder where the distinction is made, the alternative relationship is 

 omitted. Another difficulty in interpreting this schedule arises from the omission 

 of Mr. McDonald to translate the terms of relationship into equivalent English. 

 Their precise signification can usually be determined by a comparison of all of them 

 in their particular uses. The system of the Tukiithe in the extent of its discrimi- 

 nations is even more elaborate than that of the Algonkin nations. 



First Indicative Feature. My brother's son. Ego a male, is my adopted son ; 

 and my brother's dauglitcr is my younger sister. With myself a female, they are 

 my step-children. 



Second. My sister's son and daughter, E(jo a male, are my step-children. With 

 myself a female, they are the same. 



Third. My father's brother is my father-in-law. This is probably an error. 



Fourth. My father's brother's son and daughter are my brother and sister, elder 

 or younger. 



Fifth. With respect to the relationship of my father's sister it is not given, the 

 question having been altered by mistake to father's sister's husband. 



Sixth. My mother's brother is my uncle. The answer is given for mother's elder 

 brother. 



Seventh. My mother's sister is my step-mother. 



Eighth. My mother's sister's son and daughter are my brother and sister, elder 

 or younger. 



Ninth. My grandfather's brother is my grandfather. 



Tenth. The grandchildren of my brothers and sisters, and of my collateral 

 brothers and sisters, are severally my grandchildren. 



The children of a brother and sister are brothers and sisters, the relationship of 

 cousin being unknown. In like manner the principle of classification in the first 

 collateral line is carried into the second and more remote collateral lines. 



Five of the ten indicative features are present in the Tukuthe system ; one is 

 not given ; another, the seventh, agrees with the Ojibwa ; and the remaining three 

 are variant from the common form. The precise nature of this system cannot be 

 fully known until its remaining details are ascertained. 



A comparison of the terms of relationship of the five Athapascan dialects in 

 the Table shows not only that the Kutchin and the Tukutlie belong to the Atha- 

 pascan stock, but also that the five dialects thereof closely affiliate. It is a further 

 confirmation of the superiority of terms of relationship over other words for compari- 

 son, when taken under the same pronominal forms. They are developed from a 

 small number of roots. Several of them often being variations of the same word, 

 and are amongst the last words in any language to be yielded or superseded. 



Upon the basis of their system of relationship no doubt can reasonably be enter- 

 tained of its identity with the common system of the family in whatever is ultimate 

 and radical. The points of agreement are too numerous and significant to leave 

 room for hesitation upon this conclusion. Although the schedules fail to develop 

 the whole of the system in its minute parts, and fail to show some of its material 



