396 SIGN LANGUAGE AMONG NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS. 
servers Should be the same in the apprehension of the particular gest- 
ures, their language in description might be so varied as to give very 
diverse impressions to a reader who had never seen the gestures de- 
scribed. But with a set form of expressions for the typical positions, 
and skeleton outlines to be filled up and, when necessary, altered in a 
uniform style, this source of confusion is greatly reduced. The graphic 
lines drawn to represent the positions and motions on the same diagrams 
will vary but little in comparison with the similar attempt of explana- 
tion in writing. Both modes of description were, however, requested, 
each tending to supplement and correct the other, and provision was 
also made for the notation of such striking facial changes or emotional 
postures as night individualize or accentuate the gestures. It was also 
pointed out that the prepared sheets could be used by cutting and past- 
ing them in the proper order, for successive signs forming a speech or 
story, so as to exhibit the semiotic syntax. Attention was specially di- 
rected to the importance of ascertaining the intrinsic idea or conception 
of all signs, which it was urged should be obtained directly from the 
persous using them and not by inference. 
In the autumn of 1880 the prompt and industrious co-operation of 
many observers in this country, and of a few from foreign lands, had 
supplied a large number of descriptions which were collated and col- 
lected into a quarto volume of 329 pages, called ‘A Collection of Gesture 
Signs and Signals of the North American Indians, with some comparisons.” 
This was printed on sized paper with wide margins to allow of con- 
venient correction and addition. It was not published, but was regarded 
as proof, a copy being sent to each correspondent with a request for his 
annotations, not only in revision of his own contribution, but for its 
comparison with those made by others. Even when it was supposed 
that mistakes had been made in cither description or reported concep- 
tion, or both, the contribution was printed as received, in order that a 
number of skilled and disinterested persons might examine it and thus 
ascertain the amount and character of error. The attention of each 
contributor was invited to the fact that, in some instances, a sign as 
described by one of the other contributors might be recognized as in- 
tended for the same idea or object as that furnished by himself, and the 
former might prove to be the better description. Each was also re- 
quested to examine if a peculiar abbreviation or fanciful flourish might 
not have induced a difference in his own description from that of another 
contributor with no real distinction either in conception or essential 
formation. All collaborators were therefore urged to be candid in ad- 
initting, when such cases occurred, that their own descriptions were 
mere unessential variants from others printed, otherwise to adhere to 
their own and explain the true distinction. When the descriptions 
showed substantial identity, they were united with the reference to all 
the authorities giving them. 
Many of these copies have been returned with valuable annotations, 
