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, and 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 &quot;rat&quot; 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 &quot; great badger&quot;, 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 



