A somewhat different treatment is shown in Fig. 200. Here the animal form has undergone considerable modification. There are but three legs--a concession to the conventional tripod--and the body exhibits, instead of the nodes and the markings of the creature’s skin, two conventional drawings of the whole animal. Now, by higher and higher degrees of convention, we come to a long series of modified results which must be omitted for want of room. We find that the plastic features are gradually reduced until mere nodes appear where the head and the tail should be, and finally in the lower forms there remains but a blank panel or a painted device, as already shown in a preceding section. The painted devices are also reduced by degrees until all resemblance to nature is lost and geometric devices alone remain. I observe in this association of plastic and painted features a lack of the perfect consistency I had learned to expect in the work of primitive peoples. It is easy to see how, from painting the markings of the creature’s skin upon the body of the vessel, the painter should come gradually to delineate parts of the creature or even the whole creature, but we should not expect him to paint a creature distinct in kind from that modeled, thus confusing or entirely separating the conceptions; this has been done, apparently, in the vase illustrated in Fig. 202, where the plastic form represents a puma and the painting upon the sides seems intended for an alligator. It will be seen from the figures given that the devices of the panels or sides do not necessarily represent the markings of the animal’s body, as in Fig. 201, but that they may refer to the entire creature (Fig. 200) or even to what appears to be a totally distinct creature (Fig. 202). [Illustration: Fig. 201. Vase having the head and tail of a serpent projecting from opposite sides of the body and connected by a meandered design which stands for the markings of the body--½.] If realistic or semirealistic delineations are confused in this way it is to be expected that highly conventional derivative figures, so numerous and varied, should be much less clearly distinguished; that indeed there should be no certainty whatever in the reference to originals. It is difficult to say of any particular conventional device that it originated in the figure of the animal as a whole rather than in some part or character of that animal or of some other animal. [Illustration: Fig. 202. Vase representing a puma, with figures of the alligator painted upon the sides--½.] [Illustration: Fig. 203. Shallow vase with reptilian features in the round and designs in red and black representing the markings of the creature’s body--½.]