XLIV ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 



ymy of tribal names, each work assisting the other. During 

 recent years the number of students who have directed their 

 attention more or less exclusively to the study of Indian lan- 

 guages has been constantly augmented, and as a result of their 

 labors the number of vocabularies has been correspondingly in- 

 creased; hence the demand for a more comprehensive and satis- 

 factory classification than now exists. 



Prior to Gallatin's time little or nothing had been done in 

 the direction of a systematic classification of Indian languages. 

 In 1836 Gallatin issued his treatise in which he classified all 

 the languages which he was able to study by a direct com- 

 parison of vocabularies. His classification was an immense 

 advance over anything previously done and has proved a boon 

 for scholars, having served, indeed, practically as the basis for 

 most of the work in the same line performed since his time. 

 No fixed rules of nomenclature, however, have ever been 

 adopted by linguistic writers, and authors have named and re- 

 named linguistic groups without regard to the names imposed 

 upon the same or similar groups by earlier writers. As a re- 

 sult great confusion has followed not only respecting the status 

 of the various linguistic families, but also respecting the iden- 

 tity of the languages which have served as a basis for the sev- 

 eral groups proposed. The remedy for this state of aifairs is 

 the adoption, Avith strict adherence thereto, of a code of no- 

 menclatural rules similar in scope to those prevailing among 

 zoologists. 



There would appear to be no good reason why the rule of 

 priority of name, for instance, should not be followed in lin- 

 guistic as well as in zoologic classification, or why the same 

 beneficial result of fixity of nomenclature should not be ex- 

 pected to result from the adoption of this rule in the one case as 

 in the other. Students who may attempt to unravel the many 

 perplexing nomenclatural problems arising from unnecessary 

 change of names will certainly agree that such a rule is no 

 less desirable in linguistics than in zoology. 



Accordingly, the rule of priority of name, within certain lim- 

 itations, together with some other rules, has been adopted by 

 the Bureau. These limitations and rules, together with a dis- 



