6 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 44 
Further examination of this point will be found in the notes relating 
to the Seri. 
Reference to the supposed tribes or subtribes Aibino (or Aivino), 
‘Movas (or Mobas), Comuripa (or Comoripa), Onavas (or Onabas), 
Tecoripa, and Nuri is again made in order to give briefly the reasons 
for omitting them from the map. As stated above, they are con- 
sidered by Orozco y Berra as merely pueblos in which the Pima 
language was spoken without such dialectic differences as to justify 
considering them distinct. Asa rule, all dialects referred to by early 
authors writing of this section are spoken of as ‘‘distinct”’ or ‘‘par- 
ticular” languages, though the writers recognized their affinities. 
In regard to the Onava and Tecoripa, it seems to be fairly inferred 
from the statements by Cancio (155-156) that they spoke the Piman 
language. This agrees with the statement by Zapata (358-361) 
that the language spoken at Tecoripa, Cumuripa, and Onava was 
Pima, and that at Mova the language was partly Pima and partly 
Egue (Eudeve), and hence not distinct. Velarde (399) calls the- 
Indians of Tecoripa, and also the Aibino, Pima. Ribas (370) includes 
the pueblos Comoripa, Tecoripa, and Aibino among those of the 
Lower Pima. 
The last-named author (299, 358) speaks of the Nuri as Nebome 
(Pima) and on the latter page connects them with the Upper Pima, 
but on page 369 says they are a nation of a language different from 
that of the Upper Pima, though not very distant from them. 
However, according to Orozco y Berra (1:351) they inhabited the 
pueblo of Nuri, which was certainly Lower Pima. It seems from 
Ribas (lib. vi, cap. vr) that the Nuri he refers to as belonging to or 
adjoining the U pper Pima were a different Bees from those occupying 
the Nuri pueblo. 
Although Hamy places these names (except Tecoripa) on his map 
feet tnn referred to, and notwithstanding the fact that they are 
spoken of as “‘naciones,”’ there is not sufficient evidence to warrant 
the conclusion that they spoke distinct dialects. Ribas (373-374), 
speaking of the Aivino and other pueblos of that immediate section 
(en todaesta tierra adétro),says two languages were current through- 
out, and that Padre Olifano, who preached to them, understood well 
the two languages of these nations. However, he fails to state 
what languages these were. By turning to Zapata’s Relacidén, here- 
tofore referred to, some light on this point may be obtained. 
Speaking of the Mobas (361), he says their language, as mentioned 
above, was partly Pima and partly Egue (EKudeve), which so far 
agrees with Ribas’s statement and indicates the two languages to 
which the latter refers. 
