circumstances. Such designations can have little classificatory value. It is true that a linguistic nomenclature has been provided which is essentially classificatory, but this again employs the conventional historic names for the several social groups. The list for these tribal names is further complicated by the occurrence of alternate equivalents and again by unexpected subdivisions into subordinate groups. Hence, when a tribe name is encountered, practically nothing except more or less political independence can be taken for granted; as to other relations, we must know the conditions in each case. What we have just seen to be the most fundamental social tendencies of the New World, will prepare us for a very formidable list of tribes. It is estimated that for North America alone, our literature contains more than two thousand tribal designations. To offer such a list here would avail little, but some of the most important tribal names will be given in the linguistic classification (p. 369).
No important problem seems to hinge upon this tribal nomenclature, since it is solely a matter of convenience. When, however, we come to consider the internal organization of these conventional tribal groups, we do come face to face with one of the most important problems in social science. That very distinguished American social philosopher, Lewis H. Morgan, took the data for his theory of marriage and social regulation from the Iroquois and other North American tribes and his field reports are still models of accuracy.[1] Following his lead, Bandelier[2] gave us an exhaustive discussion of the Mexican system. Morgan was, above all, an evolutionist, who considered all now inexplicable social usages to be survivals of a state of culture when they did have a real function. For example, the observed tendency to use the same relationship term for father and uncle, was considered as dating from a time when there was no ready means of knowing who was the true father. As time went on, new data began to present inconsistencies with Morgan's views, but the recent extended discussion of Rivers[3] has sought to justify the earlier hypothesis on the ground that the very last culture traits to be lost or modified by a social group, are those that have to do with
