90 SISSANO. 
MELANESIAN. 
1. ul EDS Arop. 18. fal Afur. 
2. ul raget. 19. wul Paup, Yakomul. 
3. Ul Karkar. 20. un Siassi, Barriai. 
4. ull Sissano. 21. on Lifu, Mare. 
5. ull Sér. 22. ongoi Mekeo. 
6. aul Tumleo. 23. unu Motu, Galoma, Rubi, Dobu, 
7. ur Nufoor. Kobe. 
8. ari Tobadi. 24. unuri Suau. 
9. yal Vrinagol, Tsinapali, Akur. 25. kun Kilenge. 
10. le Bilibili. 26. kan Siassi. 
11. ala Eluaue, Emsau. 27. kunu Mugula. 
ru Jabim. 28. kunori Wedau. 
13. kul Wogeo. 29. gun Nayama. 
14. kil Paluan, Lou, Moanus. 30. gunu- Sinaugoro, Hula, Keapara. 
15. kulu Vitu. 31. won Nokon, Muschu. 
16. gil Nayama. 32. gum Tami. 
17. Vol Dallmannhafen. 33. kumu_  Kiriwina. 
Friederici has subjected the breadfruit names to such a searching 
examination and has drawn a conclusion so brilliant that I hesitate 
to traverse his conclusions even in a single particular. He estab- 
lishes four stocks of breadfruit names, the un, the mai, the bareo, and 
the be. Of these the former two follow a parallel and often inter- 
lacing course from Indonesia. His un stock is traceable from the 
northwestern tip of Sumatra, through Indonesia, along the north 
coast of New Guinea, down through Melanesia (its occurrence in Lifu 
and Mare (21) is at the ultimate Melanesian outpost), thence into Poly- 
nesia, as exhibited in the proper section of the foregoing tabulation. 
His mai stock falls within that speech group which, with no great 
precision, we call Micronesian, is found in the Santa Cruz and New 
Hebrides groups, and extends into Polynesia. In this inquiry we 
have to concern ourselves only with the former of these stocks. 
I can not find myself in accord with Friederici in naming this the 
un stock. His studies are based upon the Melanesian with a back- 
ward gaze upon the Indonesian; this is sufficient to establish the un 
forms in his view as primal. My examination of the identical material 
is based upon the Polynesian. That group of languages I regard as 
portative of these elements of the many languages of Indonesia as 
well as Melanesia; therefore I look upon the un stock as secondary 
and derivative from a Proto-Polynesian, which can have been nothing 
but ulu or uru or kulu-kuru. 
We may not undertake to determine the point whether the initial 
palatal is primal or has been assumed. ‘The k in these oceanic lan- 
guages is subject to a peculiar movement. At some period whose 
remoteness we are unable to estimate a tendency to obliterate the k 
was operative in many of the languages of the Pacific tract. It may 
have been a progressive movement; in some languages ancient, in 
others more modern. In the Samoan it is clearly but briefly exterior 
to the beginning of our knowledge. It is now eighty years since 
the first missionaries made the acquaintance of this speech. They 
