15. The Ugalyachmutsi of the Mithridates.
16. The Ugalents of Wrangell.—See Baer's Beiträge. These two vocabularies represent the same language. The Ugalyachmutsi, although left by Resanoff as an isolated language, is unequivocally stated by Baer to be Kolooch. Its contrast with the Esquimaux of the Tshugatshes, has always been insisted on.
17. Kenay vocabularies by Davidoff, Resanoff, Lisiansky, and Wrangell; also an anonymous one from a native. Gallatin, in the Archæologia Americana, goes so far as to separate the Kenay even from the Kolooch language.
18. The Atna of Wrangell.—See Baer's Beiträge. Now, another American language, spoken some hundred miles south of the Copper River, of which we find a vocabulary in Sir Alexander Mackenzie's Travels, is called Atna. It has no direct affinity with the present tongue. A hypothetical solution of this coincidence lies in the fact, that in the Athabascan languages the root d-n, or t-n = man. That the Kenay call themselves Tnai, or Tnaina = men, is specially stated by Baer, p. 103.
19. The Koltshany vocabulary of Wrangell.—See Baer's Beiträge. The tables of the work in question shew the language to be undoubted Kolooch.
20. The Sitca vocabularies—numerous. Cook's Norfolk Sound; the Sitca of Lisiansky; the Sitca of Davidoff (see Archæologia Americana); the Sitca of Wrangell. According to Captain Bryant, it is spoken from N. lat. 59° to 5° S. by twenty tribes. The number of individuals who speak it reckoned by Mr Green, an American missionary, at 6500—see Archæologia Americana. The standard Kolooch is that of Sitca or Norfolk Sound.
21. The Tunghaase of Mr Tolmie. Of this, the most southern dialect of Russian America, we find a short vocabulary in the Transactions of the Royal Geographical Society. It is truly stated to be closely allied to the Sitca.
That there are no more than two groups required for the classification of the above-mentioned languages, and that these are the Esquimaux and the Kolooch, seems evident. That these groups are of no high value may be shewn. It is undoubtedly true, that if we only compare isolated vocabularies with each other we shall find little but points of contrast. And we find less than might be expected even when we compare groups of vocabularies.
1. The tables of Baer, exhibiting three languages for the Esquimaux and five for the Kolooch group, give scarcely half a dozen words common to the two.
2. The table of Lisiansky, with the Unalashkan and Cadiack on the one side, and the Kenay and Sitca on the other, presents but little more.