THOMAS] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 25 
guos Cuachichiles,”’ a suggestion which he says he neither accepts nor 
contradicts. As they are separated from the parent tribe by the 
intervening Zacateco, they are given a distinct area on the accom- 
panying map, with the same number as the Guachichiles. 
TEPECANO, TEULE, CAzcan, TECUEXE 
Orozco y Berra places on his map, to the east and the southeast of 
the Cora, tribes or supposed tribes speaking these and some other 
dialects (Coloclan and Coca). As there is considerable doubt in 
regard to the existence of others of these tribes and dialects and to the 
linguistic relations of some of them, it is necessary to examine some- 
what closely the meager data regarding them. 
Of these, Coloclan may, so far as the name is concerned, be dis- 
missed from consideration as it is nowhere mentioned in his work. 
It was evidently intended for ‘Colotlan”’ (also given incorrectly by 
Bancroft, 1, 672, as ‘‘Cocotlanes’’), as it occupies precisely the posi- 
tion given to Colotlan in the text. Colotlan, it seems, may also be 
dismissed, as Orozco y Berra (2:644), though locating it on his map 
(as ‘Coloclan’’) south of the Tepecano area and along the eastern 
boundary of the Cora territory, identifies it with Tepecano. Colotlan 
is marked on his map as a pueblo in the Tepecano district and is given 
by Doctor Hrdlicka (2: 399-402) as in the Tepecano area. It would 
appear safe from this evidence, which has been gathered from the 
early statements of the missionaries, to assume that Colotlan and 
Tepecano were one and the same idiom. As this writer classifies 
Colotlan as a dialect of Cora (Orozco y Berra, 1: 282), this, if correct, 
would bring Tepecano into the same relation, but Doctor Hrdlitka 
has become convinced by recent investigations made in the section 
that the Tepecano were most closely related to the Tepehuane, and 
he gives a brief vocabulary as confirming this opinion (2: 419-425). 
Tepecano is given substantially the same area on the accompanying 
map as on Orozco y Berra’s map. 
Coca is extinct if, in fact, it ever existed as a distinct idiom. It 
could not have been very different from Tecuexe if we judge by the 
slight notices left on record in regard to it; in fact Orozco y Berra 
includes the two in one area on his map. This leaves for considera- 
tion of this group of small tribes, or subtribes, so far as mapped by 
the writer quoted, the Teule, Cazcan, and Tecuexe. 
Very little mention of the tribes speaking these languages has 
been left on record. Doctor Hrdlitka says the Cazcanes occupied 
the land from the “Rio Grande” (Rio Santiago), bordering on 
the Tepecanos and Tecuexes. Herrera (1, dec. 4, 197) says 
merely that they are a nation which inhabit as far as the border of 
the Zacatecos, and that their speech is different from that of the 
Mexicans, although the Mexican language had extended into all 
