tHomAs] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 1 
Tehueco, Sivirijoa, and Charay, below the same; and the Zuaque, who 
were established still lower down in the pueblos of Mochicahuy and 
San Miguel de Zuaque. He therefore makes Tehueco, Sinaloa, 
and Zuaque one and the same dialect, though different tribes or sub- 
tribes. Orozco y Berra makes Sinaloa and Cahita equivalent, or 
one and the same idiom, but distinct from Tehueco and Zuaque, 
which he considers identical. ‘The language which Ribas and some 
other missionaries and writers call Cinaloa, and which Hervas names 
Yaqui, is the idiom which properly is known as Cahita.”” Quoting 
from Balbi (table xxx11) the following— 
Cinaloa is spoken in the provinces of Cinaloa, of Hostimuri, and in the southern 
part of Sonora, in the intendency of that name. This language embraces three princi- 
pal dialects, quite different: the Zuaque, spoken in the southern part of the province 
of Sinaloa and in other places; the Mayo spoken along the Mayo river in Hostimuri 
and in Sonora: the Yaqui or Hiaqui, spoken along the Yaqui river in the province of 
Sonora— 
he adds (356): 
We cannot agree with the greater part of these assertions. According to the gram- 
mar of this language, ‘‘no se llama Sinaloa sino Cahita,’’ and contains three dialects 
[Mayo, Yaqui] and the Tehueco and also Zuaque which is used in Sinaloa by the 
Indians of the banks of the Rio del Fuerte. 
Doctor Brinton (3: 125) gives Tehueco, Zuaque, Mayo, and Yaqui 
as subtribes of the Cahita, but omits the Zuaque from his list (3: 134). 
In the midst of this confusion it is the author’s conclusion that per- 
haps Orozco y Berra is nearest right in identifying Zuaque and 
Tehueco as one and the same dialect, though distinct tribes. 
Orozco y Berra (1:35) says that about the mouth of the Rio del 
Fuerte were the Ahome, and along the coast south of it were the 
Vacoregue, the Batucari, the Comopori, and the Guazave: of the 
same family and idiom as the Cahita, the chief dialect being that 
named Guazave or Vacoregue. (Care must be taken to distingush 
between Comuripa (or Comoripa) of the Pima group and Como- 
pori of the Yaqui group.) He says Balbi conjectures that Ahome 
and Comopori were quite diverse, or tongues related to Gua- 
zave. ‘This he declares is not exact, as all these pueblos spoke the 
same idiom, and there was no particular Ahome or Comopori. 
In his classification (1:58) he gives Vacoregue and Guazave as 
synonymous and as spoken by the Vacoregue, Guazave, Ahome, 
Batucari, Comopori, and Zuaque. The introduction of the last 
name here must be a mistake, as in his classification (1: 58) 
he places it under Tehueco; possibly it refers here to a few Zuaque 
who lived among the Vacoregue and adopted their language. This 
author appears to have worked this out by taking up the scat- 
tered statements of the original authorities in regard to the lan- 
guages spoken in the different pueblos and missions, which it is not 
