8 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 56 
To insure accuracy, such a study, as is true, indeed, of all ethno- 
zoological and ethnobotanical work, should be cooperative, trained 
zoologists, botanists, and ethnologists working together in the field. 
Indians differ as much individually as do other races in their 
capacity; experience, and opportunity for observation and in their 
interest in the mysteries of Nature. One person may have had 
abundant opportunity for the observation of the various species of 
deer, but paying slight attention to the little chipmunks and hence not 
distinguishing the different kinds of the latter, while with another 
person the reverse may be the case. Hence the information obtained 
from a single informant may not at all represent the knowledge or 
ideas of his people. This makes it advisable whenever possible to 
check the information obtained by enlisting the services of several 
informants. 
It is too early for sweeping generalizations, but a few general 
remarks seem safe. Indian nomenclature as a whole recognizes 
differences, not relationships. There is little, if any, evidence of 
the classification by the Indian of species in consanguineous groups, 
as orders, families, arid genera, except in very obvious cases. Whether 
he does so arrange them in his mind, even though he does not express 
the idea in his nomenclature, is very doubtful and should be more 
fully investigated. In such investigations there is always danger 
of recording opinions which have been more or less influenced by con- 
tact with whites, a contingency which should be guarded against. 
In most cases a species is perhaps considered a distinct entity, not 
connected with any other species. However, their recognition of 
several kinds of bear, deer, etc., may indicate some sort of an idea 
of genetic relationship which further study may elucidate. A 
thorough knowledge of the language is necessary to a real under- 
standing of this subject. The writers found them using the English 
word ‘‘rat” for several species of squirrels and chipmunks, yet in 
their own language they have usually distinct names for each. Such 
cases as the bear, to which the Mohave in their own language apply 
a name meaning ‘‘great badger’, should be followed up to ascertain 
whether it indicates a Supposed relationship: It may well be doubted 
whether the use by the Hopi of the same name for such distinct species - 
as the Harris ground-squirrel and Say’s ground-squirrel, and with 
slightly different pronunciation for two small chipmunks, indicates 
a failure to distinguish them. Our San Ildefonso informants, 
while applying the same name to such different species as Say’s 
ground-squirrel and the little chipmunk, showed clearly by their 
comments that they did not consider them the same species. The 
solution of the problem requires a determination of the Indian’s 
conception of species, if he has any, which is not a simple task. 
Europeans and their American descendants have been familiar for 
