374 '^^^^ Origin of Totem Names and Beliefs.
for the plants and animals whose names they bear? If so, that circumstance may account for the totem-names of each group, and — granting that the origin of the names is long ago forgotten, and that native speculation has explained the names by myths — the rest is easy.
It will appear, when we come to my conjecture, that it varies from Mr. Haddon's only on one point. We both begin with plant and animal names given by the various groups, from 'without. We then suppose (or at least I suppose) the origin of the names to be forgotten, and a connection to be established between the groups and their name-giving objects ; a connection which is explained by myths, while belief in these gives rise to corresponding behaviour — respect for the totem, and for his human kins- folk. The only difference is that my theory suggests several sources of the names, while Mr. Haddon offers only one source, special articles of food and barter. Kindreds, to be sure, are now named, not from what they eat (scores of things), but from the one thing which (as a kindred) they do not eat. But this, when once the myths of kinship with the totem arose, might be a later development, arising out of the myth. In essentials, my conjecture appears to be in harmony with Mr. Haddon's — the two, of course, were independently evolved.
On one point I perceive no difficulty and no difference. It has been suggested that Mr. Haddon " commences with the commencement," whereas, in the hypothetical early age which we both contemplate, people had scarcely a sufficient command of language to invent nicknames. Why more command of language is needed for the application of nick- names, than of names, I do not perceive. In Mr. Haddon's theory, as in mine, names already existed, names of plants and animals. In both of our hypotheses, those names were transferred to human groups ; in my conjecture, for a variety of reasons ; in his, solely from connection with special articles of food eaten and bartered by each group. I am
