OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. 277 



of my female cousin, Noo-a'-ga. The children of these several collateral nephews 

 and nieces are without distinction my grandchildren. 



As near as could be ascertained the same classification was applied to the mem- 

 bers of the third, fourth, and even more remote collateral lines ; but as it was found 

 extremely difficulty to follow the chain of relationship beyond the several branches 

 of the first and second collateral lines, the attempt was forborne. 



The Greenland Eskimo system, as far as it is given, agrees with that of the 

 Eskimo of Baffin's Bay. The small amount of dialectical variation in the terms of 

 relationship will also be noticed. 



It will also be seen that the marriage relationships are fully discriminated, and 

 that, in this respect the Eskimo is in general agreement with the Ganowanian form. 

 Thus, the wives of my several nephews are my daughters-in-law, Ookoo'-a'-ga ; and 

 the husbands of my several wives are my sons-in-law, Ning-a-ou'-gwa. In like 

 manner the wives of these several male cousins are my sisters-in-law, I-e'-ga ; and 

 the husbands of these several female cousins are my brothers-in-law, Oo-lcoo-d' -ga. 

 This term, it will be seen, is applied to a son-in-law as well. For the remaining 

 marriage relationships, the nomenclature is quite full, as will be found by consulting 

 the Table. 



It thus appears that the Eskimo has but two, out of ten, of the indicative features 

 of the system of the Ganowanian family. As it is presented in the Table it is in 

 general agreement with the Ganowanian system in the fulness of its nomenclature, 

 in the- classification of brothers and sisters into elder or younger, and in the mer- 

 gence of the collateral lines in the lineal line, ascending and descending. It is also a 

 classificatory as distinguished from a descriptive system. But in the greater and 

 most important fundamental characteristics of this system it is wanting. The Es- 

 kimo form not only fails in the necessary requisites for the admission of this people, 

 upon the basis of their system of relationship, into the Ganowanian family, but 

 furnishes positive elements to justify their exclusion. The two systems may have 

 sprung remotely, but certainly not immediately, from the same source. After the 

 remaining Asiatic and Polynesian forms, to which attention will next be directed, 

 have been examined and compared, the correctness of this conclusion will be more 

 fully appreciated. 



