420 COILED BASKETRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA [eTH. ANN. 41 
It will be seen that for the three most common types or sizes of 
burden baskets they are agreed that the height and the length of 
the bottom are approximately the same or that the height exceeds 
the length of the bottom by a very small amount. In the majority 
of baskets of all classes the length of bottom actually is from 75 to 80 
per cent of the height of the walls, the range being from 50 to 160 
per cent. The extremes are evidently of another class. 
Two of the informants stated that the length of the bottom was half 
that of the mouth for the tsi.’a and two-thirds of the length of the 
mouth for the tsihetsa. In this measurement they were more nearly 
correct. In group A the range is 40-62 per cent, with an average of 49 
per cent; in group B, 45-55 per cent, average 53 per cent; in the undif- 
ferentiated group 44-85 per cent, the majority averaging about 55 per 
cent, with five over 70 per cent. 
The width of the bottom was declared by the same two women 
to be less than half that of the mouth for the tsi.’a. 
Since they stated that for the tsihetsa the height was equal to the 
width of the mouth, or to twice the width of the bottom, or a little 
less than that, we should expect the width of the mouth to equal 
twice’ that of the bottom, or not quite that. Thus, for both types 
the ratio of the width of the bottom to that of the mouth should lie 
between 40 per cent and a little more than 50 per cent. As a matter 
of fact, it does. In group A the range is 38-57 per cent, with an 
average of 41 per cent; in group B, 34-53 per cent, with an average 
of 42 per cent; in the undifferentiated group, 35-74 per cent, with 
an average of 49 per cent. 
Only for the tsihetsa have these two women remarked that the 
height about equals the width of the mouth. None of the others 
mentioned it. As a matter of fact, the ratio is surprisingly constant 
for all types, the average lying for the three groups studied between 
108 and 113 per cent for the ratio of the width of the mouth to the 
height as standard. Very few exceed 120 per cent. Allowing the 
addition of about 10 per cent for an overestimation of the vertical 
line as compared to the horizontal, this would about equalize their 
apparent lengths. That this ratio should not have been more 
generally noted is rather surprising. As a corrollary of this, no 
notice has been taken of the ratio of the height to the length of the 
mouth, which is also fairly constant, because of the relationship of 
the proportions of the mouth. Here the almost fixed ratio of 74 or 72 
per cent between the width and length obtains. The failure of the 
women to notice this has been remarked upon elsewhere. 
The length of the bottom is such a variable quantity that no 
satisfactory result was secured concerning its ratio to the width of 
the mouth. In fact, it will be generally found that all ratios involving 
one of the bottom measurements are subject to a wide range of 
variation. 
