36 BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY I bull. 63 



except d'Orbigny (see Author Bibliography), produce evidence to 

 prove their statements. Prof. Poeppig, whom Dr. Brinton quotes 

 with reserve, had no first-hand information on the subject and seems 

 merely to follow Father Falkner, whom he cites (i, 464). 



It seems, therefore, established with reasonable certainty from the 

 testimony of the numerous early authorities, most of them presenting 

 first-hand data, that whatever the Chonoan language was, it was not 

 an Araucanian dialect. 



Was it, however, related to the Patagonian or Tehuelchean? 

 Dr. Lehmann-Nitsche's hypothesis that Father Estevan's Guaitecas 

 Islanders were a branch of the Ona-Tehuelche TsTion people is dis- 

 cussed in detail in the Author Bibliography imder Estevan. 



Father Falkner stated (99) that his Vuta Huilliches. including the 

 Chonos, Poy-yus and Key-yus, spoke a mixture of Moluche and 

 Tehuelche — an opinion followed by Perez Garcia {Gol. liist. Chile, 

 XXII, 34-35). Dr. Lenz more recently (&, 312) has suggested that 

 the Chonos "were probably near relatives of the Tehuelches and 

 Onas." If, however, the Chonoan had been a mixed Araucanian- 

 Tehuelchean tongue, some of the many early observers would in all 

 probability have detected traces of the Araucanian element. Father 

 Falkner was not writing here from personal knowledge and was using 

 the name Chonos in the loose sense formerly not uncommon, to denote 

 the Indians living "on and near the islands of Chiloe," who as we 

 know from the best first-hand sources spoke an Araucanian dialect 

 (Gonzalez de Agiieros, 110-111; Moraleda, 207; Olivares, 370). 

 Byron's Chonos came from "the neighborhood of Chiloe" {a, 103) 

 and Capt. E. Simpson appears to identify the Payos and Chonos 

 (104). The natives, therefore, whom Father Falkner's informant 

 had in mind were pretty clearly not true Chonos at all. Further 

 details on the Vuta Huilliches are given in the Author Bibliography 

 under Falkner. 



If the Chonoan tongue was neither an Araucanian nor a Patago- 

 nian or Tehuelchean dialect, was it a distinct linguistic stock or was 

 it related to the Alacalufan? The late Prof. Chamberlain (Jb, 468) 

 accorded it the dignity of a distinct stock, but the evidence he 

 adduces goes to prove merely its distinction from Araucanian. 



Below is given what evidence bearing on the question the present 

 writer has been able to glean from available sources: 



Goicueta, Cortes Hojea's chronicler, after remarking that the 

 HuilUs from Corcovado Gulf to Cape Tres Montes spoke a language 

 different from that of the Coronados Gulf people (518), adds (519) 

 that the more southern Indians between Cape Ochavario or Tres 

 Montes and the "Strait of Ulloa" are "de otra lengua que no la de 

 los huillis dicha, e por gente es mas pobre," etc. This is concise and 

 clear enough, and for the rest Goicueta is a very sober and exact 



