'A. R. Brown, "Three Tribes of Western Australia," Journ. Royal Anthrop. Instit., 1913, vol. 43, 143-194.
Australia in general cf. Brown in Walter Hutchinson, ed., CMS toms of the World, 16o. B. Spencer and Gillen, The Native Tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia, 1914, 65-82, and The Native Tribes of Central Australia, 1898, 66-91, 637.
North America north of Mexico may be split into two main divisions. Among the Eskimo, in southern British Columbia, the Basin states, Washington, Oregon, and part of California, there are predominantly lineal or bifurcate collateral systems ; in the remainder of the continent the terminologies are bifurcate merg ing. These two main areas correspond roughly to a social organi zation on the family basis and a clan organization, respectively.
Two Australian features, the reciprocity principle and the dis crimination of maternal and paternal grandparents, occur exclu sively, or nearly so, in the Far West. However, they do not appear with bifurcate merging traits.
Primarily on the basis of cousin grouping Spier has established eight varieties of nomenclature.' The Iroquois type maintains the separation of generations, treats parallel cousins as siblings, and designates cross-cousins by a specific cousin term. The Mackenzie Basin type drops distinctions between cousins, treating all alike as siblings. The Eskimo type resembles the foregoing in merging parallel and cross-cousins, but separates them from siblings. The Omaha systems, embracing several Californian as well as Central tribes, distinguish among cross-cousins. The father's sister's chil dren are regarded as sister's children, which classes them (on bi furcate merging principles) as children if the speaker is a woman. Correlatively, the mother's brother's daughter is classed as a mother, while the mother's brother's son is equated with the mother's brother. In the Crow type the reverse confusion of gen erations occurs; the father's sister's son is a "father" and addresses his mother's brother's children as his "children"; the father's sis ter's daughter is a father's sister.
Spier's remaining varieties rest on other principles. His Salish type diverges in displaying lineal features. The Acoma type is
segregated by virtue of its three grandparental terms,—one for a man's grandfather, another for a woman's grandmother, a third for a grandparent of the opposite sex. Finally, the Yuman va riety is characterized by a refinement of age distinctions,—the father's elder brothers and mother's elder sisters being distin guished from their younger siblings, while parallel cousins are sometimes classed as elder or younger siblings according to their parents' rather than their own ages.
Spier's types avowedly embrace tribes neither geographically nor linguistically close to their eponyms. Thus, the Iroquois type embraces the Iroquois, Ojibwa, Cree, Dakota, some Californian groups, and the Tsimshian of British Columbia.
Based on different principles, Spier's findings (for which he deprecates any interpretation) are not at once wholly convertible into our terminology. However, the Salish case, which he refuses to class by the cousin criterion as of the Mackenzie Basin category, is coextensive with the lineal type. Moreover, both his Omaha and Crow types are varieties of the bifurcate merging type. This, in its classical Seneca form, largely coincides with Spier's Iro quois type, though his stressing of cousin terminology leads to the admission of several tribes who do not merge parents' sib lings and parents. In Spier's scheme, the Eskimo are segregated because they use a distinctive cousin term for all cousins. Their separation is undoubtedly warranted. Morgan himself, though describing their system as "classificatory," shows that the nomenclature has "but two, out of ten, of the indicative features of the system of the Ganowanian family" and that "in the greater and most important fundamental characteristics of this system it is On Morgan's evidence, the use of individualizing terms for the parents and the segregation of maternal from pa ternal uncles and aunts, would place the Eskimo under the bifur cate collateral head; more recent data for another local division are confirmatory.' Spier's Acoma and Yuman varieties, logically outside his own scheme, hardly merit separate categories, as he himself admits in the Acoma case.