cooi-Eu] BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TRIBES OF TIERRA DEL FUEGO 53 



The actual resemblances between the two languages are judged 

 sufficiently clear and numerous to prove Hnguistic kinship by the 

 follomng authorities, all or nearly all of whom have made direct and 

 independent studies: Th. Bridges, (h, Mar. 1, 1876, 60;^ Apr. 1, 1880, 

 74; Oct. 1, 1884, 224; e, 332; g and i, cited by Hyades, q, 11; 

 Ji, 200, 203; j, 316; Tc, 223); Lista (b, 56, 82, 89; e, 37); Brinton 

 (c, 329); La Grasserie (643-647); Lehmann-Nitsche (a; h; d, 233- 

 237); Beauvoir (a, 6; h, 177-181); C. Gallardo (106); O. Norden- 

 skjold (c, 672; d, 434; e, 167-168; g, 355; j, 127); Outes (d, 132-133) 

 and Spegazzini {h, 239; c, 132). ^ 



A grammatical comparison can not well be made, as unfortunately 

 very httle has been published on Ona morphology, but from a study 

 of the short comparative glossary compiled by Sr. Lista (b, 82, 56), 

 of the longer ones by Dr. La Grasserie (643-647) and Father Beauvoir 

 (6, 179-181), of another compiled by the present writer for his own 

 use, and particularly of the comprehensive one pubhshed by Dr. 

 Lehmann-Nitsche {d, 242-276), a conclusion in favor of Ona- 

 Tehuelche hnguistic kinsliip, in spite of many lexical divergences, 

 seems not only justified but unavoidable. ThQ reader is referred 

 especially to Dr. Lehmann-Nitsche's invaluable compilation. 



B. SOMATOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 



Mr. Darwin (a, 1871 ed., 205) and Admiral Fitz-Roy {a, 120) noted 

 the resemblance between the Good Success Bay natives and the 

 Patagonians, and since their time other observers who have had an 

 opportunity to compare the two peoples have been struck by the 

 same suggestive resemblance in stature, build, features, and physical 

 appearance. Thus it came to be accepted as beyond doubt that the 

 Onas and Tehuelches are one people. 



Since, however, the publication of the results of the limited but 

 important Ona cranial studies by Dr. Hultkrantz (a and especially h) 

 and Dr. Hrdhcka (a, in Dabbene, 6, 283) the older theory has been 

 questioned more or less. These studies apparently show that the 

 Onas are not brachycephaUc, as had been expected, but instead vary 

 from mesaticephahsm to dolichocephahsm (Hultkrantz, b, 131, 167; 

 Hrdlicka, loc. cit.; cf. also Rivet, 257). 



On the premise that the modern Tehuelches are brachycephaUc, 

 most recent writers who touch on the relations of the Onas and 

 Tehuelches have been inclined to adjudge the former more nearly 

 akin to the ancient Tehuelches (Hultkrantz, b, 163-164; Laloy, b, 404; 



1 The Rev. Mr. Bridges was the first definitely to note this linguistic similarity. 



2 Cf. also: Bove, a, 789; 6, 133; c, 124; d, Arch.. 288; Benignus, 229; Keane, b, 431; c, 42; Kriekeberg, 140; 

 Lo\'isato, 6, 131-132; Martial, 185. A good taany of the passages referred to in the text and in the present 

 note are quoted in Lehmann-Nitsche, d, 234-236; and La Grasserie, 643-647. Dr. Brinton's later theory 

 (f , 252-253) that the Ona tongue is more nearly related to the Yahgan is explained by the fact that Dr. 

 Segers' vocabulary which he used contains many Yahgan words (L. Badges, cited by Lehmana-Nitsche, 

 d, 236-237). 



