THOMAS] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 5 
northeastern boundary of the Opata territory, though not marked 
on his map. They are located by Hamy' on his map, however, and 
are noted on the map accompanying this paper, though numbered 3 
by mistake. That this separation from the main body dates back to 
the period herein referred to seems to be proven by the fact that 
Ribas (359) mentions the ‘‘Bapispes” as in the direction of New 
Mexico from Sinaloa. | 
Pima of Bamoa.—Another isolated group was situated south of 
the Mayo on lower Sinaloa river, Bamoa being the chief pueblo. 
This group, which is properly marked on Orozco y Berra’s map 
(under the name Bamoa), consisted, chiefly at least, of the Pima 
who accompanied Cabeza de Vaca on his return from Florida (Ribas, 
119; Orozco y Berra, 1:333). The former says expressly that these 
accompanying Indians were Nebomes (Pima) and that they settled 
the pueblo of Bamoa on the Rio de Petatlan (Sinaloa river). They 
do not appear to have spoken a language dialectically different from 
Lower Pima, hence the name Bamoa is omitted from our map. 
Tepehuane colony.—Hamy locates another small group, without 
any special name, in the extreme western portion of the Tepehuane 
territory. This is based probably on the statement by Orozco y 
Berra (1: 324) that some documents say that the villages of this sec- 
tion were inhabited by Pima, and others, that they were peopled 
by Tepehuane. He adds the belief that they were chiefly Pima. 
Mention is made of several supposed subtribes of the Lower Pima, 
as the Movas, Comuripa, Aibino, Onavas, and Nuri; but these names 
appear to refer chiefly to different villages without sufficient evidence 
of difference in dialect. Orozco y Berra (1:353) says the Movas, 
Onavas, Nuri, Comuripa, and Tecoripa were pueblos of the Lower 
Pima in which the Pima language was spoken, but that the Aibino 
and Sisibotari were subtribes of the Upper Pima (an evident error, 
as Aibino was a Lower Pima pueblo); Hamy places the Aibino, 
Comuripa, Onavas, Movas, and Nuri on his map as subtribes of the 
Lower Pima. (See remarks below.) 
Doctor Brinton asserts (3:127) that the Ahome were ‘‘a distinctly 
Pima people,” referring to Buelna as authority.? This is probably 
an error, as the dialect spoken by this people appears to have been 
substantially the same as that spoken by the Guazave, who per- 
tained to the Yaqui group (Yaqui, Mayo, Tehueco), as will appear 
in the notes relating to that tribe. 
Although the Guayma have generally been considered a subtribe 
of the Seri, Hervas appears to dissent from this view, and compara- 
tively recently Pinart, from an examination of a remnant of the 
group, is Inclined to connect them with the Pima (Brinton, 3:127). 
1 Bull. Soe. d’anthrop. de Paris, 3. s., v1, 785-791, ee 1883, and Decades American 3d and 4th, 99. 
See also Doc. Hist. Mex., 4th ser., 1, 401. 
2 Peregrinacion de los Aztecas y Nombres Panae Indigenas de Sinaloa, p. 21, Mexico, 1887. 
