of the
continent, and to be supplanted by a new "mode." A note may be made in
this connection of the large number of diverse signs for _horse_, all
of which must have been invented within a comparatively recent period,
and the small variation in the signs for _dog_, which are probably
ancient.

SURVIVAL IN GESTURE.

Even when the specific practice of sign language has been generally
discontinued for more than one generation, either from the adoption
of a jargon or from the common use of the tongue of the conquering
English, French, or Spanish, some of the gestures formerly employed
as substitutes for words may survive as a customary accompaniment to
oratory or impassioned conversation, and, when ascertained, should be
carefully noted. An example, among many, may be found in the fact
that the now civilized Muskoki or Creeks, as mentioned by Rev. H.F.
Buckner, when speaking of the height of children or women, illustrate
their words by holding their hands at the proper elevation, palm up;
but when describing the height of "soulless" animals or inanimate
objects, they hold the palm downward. This, when correlated with the
distinctive signs of other Indians, is an interesting case of the
survival of a practice which, so far as yet reported, the oldest men
of the tribe, now living only remember to have once existed. It is
probable that a collection of such distinctive gestures among the most
civilized Indians would reproduce enough of their ancient system to be
valuable, while possibly the persistent inquirer might in his search
discover some of its surviving custodians even among Chabta or
Cheroki, Innuit or Abnaki, Klamath or Nutka.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN IDENTITY OF SIGNS AND THEIR USE AS AN ART.

The general report that there is but one sign language in North
America, any deviation from which is either blunder, corruption, or a
dialect in the nature of provincialism, may be examined in reference
to some of the misconceived facts which gave it origin and credence.
It may not appear to be necessary that such examination should be
directed to any mode of collecting and comparing signs which would
amount to their distortion. It is useful, however, to explain that
distortion would result from following the views of a recent essayist,
who takes the ground that the description of signs should be made
according to a "mean" or average. There can be no philosophic
consideration of signs according to a "mean" of observations.