n were, however, requested, each tending to supplement
and correct the other, and provision was also made for the notation
of such striking facial changes or emotional postures as might
individualize or accentuate the gestures. It was also pointed out that
the prepared sheets could be used by cutting and pasting them in the
proper order, for successive signs forming a speech or story, so as to
exhibit the semiotic syntax. Attention was specially directed to the
importance of ascertaining the intrinsic idea or conception of all
signs, which it was urged should be obtained directly from the persons
using them and not by inference.

In the autumn of 1880 the prompt and industrious co-operation of
many observers in this country, and of a few from foreign lands,
had supplied a large number of descriptions which were collated and
collected into a quarto volume of 329 pages, called "_A Collection
of Gesture Signs and Signals of the North American Indians, with some
comparisons_."

This was printed on sized paper with wide margins to allow of
convenient correction and addition. It was not published, but was
regarded as proof, a copy being sent to each correspondent with
a request for his annotations, not only in revision of his own
contribution, but for its comparison with those made by others. Even
when it was supposed that mistakes had been made in either description
or reported conception, or both, the contribution was printed as
received, in order that a number of skilled and disinterested persons
might examine it and thus ascertain the amount and character of error.
The attention of each contributor was invited to the fact that, in
some instances, a sign as described by one of the other contributors
might be recognized as intended for the same idea or object as that
furnished by himself, and the former might prove to be the better
description. Each was also requested to examine if a peculiar
abbreviation or fanciful flourish might not have induced a difference
in his own description from that of another contributor with no
real distinction either in conception or essential formation. All
collaborators were therefore urged to be candid in admitting, when
such cases occurred, that their own descriptions were mere unessential
variants from others printed, otherwise to adhere to their own and
explain the true distinction. When the descriptions showed substantial
identity, they were united with the reference to all the author