JtJNE 13, 1913] 



SCIENCE 



911 



paragraph of the volume before us (p. 335). 

 Say, indeed, furnishes admirably illustrative 

 concrete data. Why should these be withheld 

 from the reader? Even where no additional 

 information is given by an older writer, it is 

 often very important to know the earliest time 

 at which the mere existence of some custom 

 has been recorded. This is especially true of 

 the Plains area where so much diffusion has 

 demonstrably occurred. Yet the authors feel 

 at liberty to ignore the fact that the oiEce of 

 " crow "-wearing policemen for the buffalo 

 hunt was noted by Say' as early as 1820. 

 Again, few subjects have aroused more inter- 

 est among American ethnologists than age- 

 societies and military organizations. J. O. 

 Dorsey's data' on these are meager enough, but 

 the authors have practically not a word on 

 either. 



The neglect of contradictory evidence gath- 

 ered by others constitutes a still more serious 

 defect, because the unwary reader thus ob- 

 tains a one-sided, unduly simplified picture of 

 the condition of ailairs. According to Miss 

 Fletcher and Mr. La Flesche, the Black 

 Shoulder gens had two subgentes, one of 

 which was still further subdivided. We get 

 no suggestion that there was any conflict of 

 opinion among their informants or that any 

 change may have occurred in relatively re- 

 cent times. Additional names, however, are 

 given by J. O. Dorsey,' who carefully recounts 

 the contradictory statements of his native au- 

 thorities and hints at recent changes in the 

 subgentes. With reference to two gentes the 

 authors state that lesser groups within these 

 units " have been mistaken for subgentes " 

 (pp. 172, 178). Had notice been taken of J. 

 O. Dorsey's data, it would be possible to under- 

 stand what may be meant by these words. As 

 it is, we may assume with some plausibility 

 that the phrase is a covert criticism of J. O. 

 Dorsey, for that writer undoubtedly does 

 speak of " subgentes " where his successors 

 find only " groups." However, a reference to 



*0p. cit., p. 189. 



* Op. cit., pp. 342, 352. 



'lUd., pp. 230-231. 



Dorsey's text° and to the authors' definition of 

 a " subgens " reduces the criticism to a verbal 

 misunderstanding. Miss Fletcher and Mr. La 

 Flesche (p. 137) understand by " subgens " a 

 section of the gens that has a distinctive rite, 

 while a " subdivision " or " group " has none, 

 though it had a particular ofiice in the rite be- 

 longing to the gens. Dorsey does not under- 

 stand by " subgens " anything of the kind. 

 He tells us that in his opinion two of his main 

 informants always mean a classification for 

 marriage purposes when they speak of di- 

 visions of a gens, and it is clear that this fea- 

 ture is uppermost in his own mind whenever 

 he uses the term " subgens." If the authors' 

 criticism is meant as an innuendo against 

 Dorsey, it is not only disingenuous but incor- 

 rect. 



It is very interesting to examine the soli- 

 tary iHstance of open criticism directed by the 

 authors against their great predecessor. They 

 write (p. 589, footnote) : 



The statement has been made (11th Ann. Rep. 

 Bur. Ethnol., 542), "In two of the buffalo gentes 

 of the Omaha (the Inke-sabe and Hanga) there 

 is a belief that the spirits of deceased members 

 of those gentes return to the buffaloes" and the 

 buffalo is spoken of as " the eponymic ancestor. ' ' 

 The writer here cited fell into the error of regard- 

 ing the animal which furnished the peculiar symbol 

 in the rites of these kinship groups as the pro- 

 genitor of the members of the groups. No such 

 confusion seems to have existed in the Omaha 

 mind. Men were not believed to be descended 

 from animals. If the expressions ' ' Buffalo 

 people," "Elk people," "Deer people" or 

 ' ' Thunder people ' ' were used, these descriptive 

 terms were not employed in a literal sense but 

 as tropes. 



A little farther (p. 601) we read a still more 

 categorical denial: 



Although, according to the Omaha view, man 

 is so closely connected with the animals, he was 

 not born of them; no trace has been found 

 showing any confusion or mixture of forms; no 

 Omaha believes that his ancestors were elk, or 

 buffalo, or deer, or turtle, any more than that 

 they were the wind, the thunder or the sky. 



This criticism, whatever be its merits, is 

 • Op. cit., pp. 242, 245, 258. 



