ee PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. 
For instance, in a map of Lake Tanganyika, drawn by Cap- 
tain Hore, of the London Missionary Society, and published 
in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, vol. xii., 
there are 128 placenames. Of these, 51 are either Fijian 
words now current, or possible Fijian. There is a prefix ka, 
which is common in Fiji; also, there is another 
prefix—M/u—attached to points of land projecting into the 
lake, which, under the form Mua, is used in Fiji for pre- 
cisely such projections; and two of the names--Kamba and 
Kalambo—are place-names in Fiji, letter for letter, at the 
present day; and yet, in spite of ail these similarities and 
identities, there is nothing in the Tanganyika languages, as 
far as I can learn, which falls in with the Fijian. The fact 
is that the surface similarity in this case is too great. It 
is simply impossible that so many words could have travelled 
all the way from Central Africa to Fiji, retaining their oid 
forms, after all their migrations, extending over many cen- 
turies. Words that form the current coin of any language 
are sure to get more or less defaced in the using; and if 
those identical forms had really come from Central Africa, 
they would not have been identical by the time they arnved 
in Fiji. 
Sometimes our philologists have to manufacture their 
surface similarities, and they do it with all diligence. For 
instance, Latham takes the Kaurarega as an Australian 
language. This, by the way, should be Kauralaig; and, 
since Jaig is only a termination, with some such meaning as 
‘folk,’ the language should be spoken of as the Kaura. 
It is the language spoken in the Prince of Wales Group, 
north-west of Cape York. In order to prove his case, Latham 
takes the Kaura numeral quassur W (=2) as identical 
with the Australian kootera, kuttara, or kardura, and for 
so doing he gives no better reason than that the Greeks had 
both Thalassa and Thalatta! Then, again, he takes the 
Kaura dual pronoun ngipel to be made up of “thou” and 
‘two’; but, since the Kaura numeral, 2, is not pel, but 
quassur, he goes as far as New South Wales, and South 
Australia, hunting for his pel. There he finds purlaitye, 
purlette, parkulu, and bulla, all of which he connects with 
pel—for no better reason than that they have p or } and / 
in them! TI do not affirm that Latham’s words are not con- 
nected with pel; they may be for anything I know to the 
contrary, though it is wildly improbable that they are; but 
we have a right to ask for proof of their connection, and 
Latham gives us none, nor does he seem to think that any is 
required. Philologists will have to adopt saner methods 
