148 SYSTEMS OP CONSANGUINITY AND AFFINITY 



ters-in-law ; and all the husbands of my several nieces and collateral daughters are 

 my sons-in-law ; and I apply to them the same terms respectively which I use to 

 designate the husbands and wives of my own sons and daughters. There are some 

 exceptions to this proposition. 



XXV. All the wives of my several collateral brothers and of my several male 

 cousins are my sisters-in-law ; and all the husbands of my several collateral sisters 

 and of my several female cousins are my brothers-in-law, without regard to the 

 degree of nearness. There are some exceptions. 



XXVI. In all of the preceding relationships the correlative terms are strictly 

 applied ; thus, the one I call my son calls me father ; the one I call grandson calls 

 me grandfather : the one I call nephew calls me uncle ; the one I call brother-in- 

 law calls me the same ; the one I call father-in-law calls me son-in-law ; and so on 

 throughout the entire series, whether of affinity or of consanguinity. 



When the foregoing propositions have been verified by passing through one of 

 the schedules in the Table, the system itself will become perfectly familiar, and 

 any deviations from the standard form in other schedules will at once be recognized 

 wherever they occur. A number of discrepancies will also be discovered, falling 

 below the character of permanent deviations; but they relate to subordinate details, 

 and do not disturb the general plan of consanguinity. Some of them may represent 

 a misapprehension of the question to be answered ; others an ignorance of the true 

 relationship, and still others a discrepancy in some part of the form of the particular 

 nation. In the details of a system so complicated and elaborate, drawn out from 

 uncultivated languages, and with a nomenclature so opulent, a large amount of 

 variation would not only be unavoidable, but an exemption from it would excite 

 surprise. A sufficient number of features, which may be called indicative of the 

 typical form, are so constant as to leave no doubt of the identity of the system as 

 it now prevails in the several branches of the family, with the exception of the 

 Eskimo. The fundamental conceptions upon which the system rests are simple 

 and clearly defined, and work out their results with logical accuracy. 



The deviations from uniformity may be recapitulated as follows : 



I. Relationship of Uncle and Aunt. In the Crow and Minnitaree, and in one or 

 more of the Athapascan nations, these relationships are wanting. These nations 

 form an exception, in this respect, to the entire Ganowanian family. In a number 

 of other nations the relationship of aunt is unknown, and that of mother visually 

 takes its place. 



II. Relationships of Nephew and Niece. In four or five dialects terms for 

 nephew and niece are wanting. These relationships limited, with Ego a male, to 

 the children of his sister, and with Ego a female, usually to the children of her 

 brother, is one of the most striking of the indicative features of the system. But 

 a failure of five out of seventy-five Indian nations upon these relationships is not 

 sufficient to require an explanation, even if it could be made. 



III. Double Set of Terms. The use of one set of terms by the males, and another 

 set by the females in some nations for certain relationships ; also the use of step- 

 father, step-brother, and step-son, among other nations in the place of the full 

 terms ; and finally the use, in still other nations, of little father and little mother 



