220 COILED BASKETRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA LETH. ANN. 41 
however, and indicate that the baskets having such proportions are 
evidently of another class, or are badly proportioned. It is some- 
times quite difficult to know just how to classify a basket, on account 
of the surprising number of features usually not associated, which 
occasionally are represented together. The greatest number of meas- 
urements showing the ratio of width of mouth in relation to height 
center around 113 per cent. In a number of cases the two measure- 
ments are identical. Few women, however, are aware of this, and 
few seem to have noticed that the trapezoidal end of a basket thus 
has practically the same measurements for its two most conspicuous 
dimensions, the height and width at the top. This makes a T form 
which could in most cases be inclosed in an almost perfect square. 
On glancing at the baskets it would appear that the width of the 
bottom is about half that of the mouth, but a study of this ratio proves 
that there is so much variation that no generalized statement can be 
safely made. One very interesting ratio of proportions holds for 
practically all the baskets and is remarkably constant. The width 
of the mouth is about three-fourths of its length.” The average 
for the series is 74 per cent, the variations showing 10 cases below 
70 per cent and 7 above 80 per cent out of 103 baskets measured. 
Because of this constant ratio between width and length of mouth, 
the side of the basket in its two most conspicuous dimensions also 
has a fairly fixed form, which could theoretically be inclosed in a 
rectangle, the size of that of the mouth, or nearly so. Owing to the 
fact that the height is a little less than the width of mouth, the width 
of this second rectangle would not be quite the same, but according 
to the average obtained from the same set of measurements as in 
the case of the shape of the mouth would be only 66 per cent of 
the length. The variation in the ratio of the height to the length 
of mouth in this series of basketry is greater than for the mouth 
measurements. 
The chief difficulty which lies in the way of discovering a fairly 
constant arithmetical relationship between the dimensions already 
discussed and those of the bottom lies in the extreme variability of 
the bottoms. To the eye a fairly constant trapezoid form is main- 
tained for all the baskets, chiefly because the angle of inclination of 
the walls changes comparatively little. The lower limit of the side 
walls is obscured by the gradual curve which unites bottom and side, 
and does away with a defining edge, making it very difficult to 
measure the exact dimensions, theoretical or actual. The bottoms 
are also very small as compared with the upper portions of the baskets, 
which fact tends to make any variation from the form much less 
evident. 
” For this average and variations see appendix, pp. 416 et seq. 
