Method in the Study of Totemism

Is there any human institution which can be safely called Totemism ? Is there any possibility of defining, or even describing Totemism? Is it legitimate—is it even possible, with due regard for methodology and logic—to seek for the normal form of Totemism, and to trace it through many Protean changes, produced by various causes, social and speculative? I think it possible to discern the main type of Totemism, and to account for divergences.
Now the feature salient in the totemic life of some communities, which I project into the life of the remote past, and make the starting-point of the totemic process is the totemic name, animal, vegetable, or what not, of the totem-kin.
In an attempt to construct a theory of the origin of totemism, the choice of the totemic name as a starting-point is logically justifiable, because the possession of a totemic name is, universally , the mark of a totem-kin; or, as most writers prefer to say, clan. How can you know that a clan is totemic, if it is not called by a totemic name? The second salient feature in the totemic life of some communities which I select as even prior to the totemic name, is the exogamy of the clans now bearing totemic names.
To these remarks Mr. Goldenweizer would reply (I put his ideas briefly) there are (1) exogamous clans without totemic names; and there are (2) clans with totemic names, but without exogamy.
To this I answer (1) that if his exogamous clan has not a totemic name, I do not quite see why it should be discussed in connection with totemism; but that many exogamous sets, bearing not totemic names, but local names or nicknames, can be proved to have at one time borne totemic names. Such exogamous sets, therefore, no longer bearing totemic names, are often demonstrably variations from the totemic type; and are not proofs that there is no such thing as a totemic type.
Secondly, I answer, in the almost unique case of clans bearing totemic names without being exogamous, that these clans have previously been exogamous, and have, under ascertained conditions, shuffled off exogamy. They are deviations from the prevalent type of clans with totemic names plus exogamy. They are exceptions to the rule, and, as such, they prove the rule. They are divergences from the type, and, as such, they prove the existence of the type from which they have diverged.