[52] Vol. i. pp. 189-190. Central Tribes, p. 123.
[53] Central Tribes, p. 123.
[54] The myth is self-contradictory in the case of the Achilpa. They were in both phratries; the other totems were confined to one or the other phratry. In the latter case the myth exaggerates the present state of things, and puts all, not the great majority, of each totem in one phratry or the other. In the former case the myth throws the actual state of things back into the past.
[55] By "moiety" the authors mean one of the two main exogamous divisions or phratries.
[56] Central Tribes, p. 120. In fact out of three Achilpa or Wild Cat sets of wanderers, two, in the legend, are exclusively of one phratry—Purula-Kumara—and one is exclusively of the other, Bulthara-Panunga, op. cit. p. 120.
[57] Central Tribes, p. 120.
[58] T. and E., vol. iii. pp. 9, 287.
VII.
We now turn to cases in which exogamous "clans" bear, not totemic names, but local or descriptive names, like the Tlingit according to Dr. Swanton. In several instances it is easy to prove that exogamous "clans," now bearing local or other descriptive names, have previously borne totemic names. This result has often been attained by the circumstance that with male descent of the totem name, a regular local clan is formed. Such a clan then comes to be known by a territorial description (just as lairds were in Scotland) and the totemic name may drop out of use. If so, the clan becomes exogamous under a territorial or other name, and is no longer a totem clan.