Another example of the variation of explanation of the same design is found in designs from New Ireland[56] (fig. 99). The chevron represents the leaf of a palm, an armring, a worm, the foot of a bird, tracks of a crustacean, or fish bones. [56] Stephan, Neu-Mecklenburg, p. 114, fig. 120. The same figure is found in the same author’s “Südseekunst”, p. 15, fig. 19, with somewhat different explanations, presumably due to an oversight. The great variety of these interpretations of the same figure and of the many forms by means of which the same ideas find expression, show clearly that the terms by which designs are described must not be conceived simply as names, but that rather a certain association exists between the general artistic pattern and a number of ideas which are selected according to tribal usage, and also in accordance with the momentary interest of the person who gives the explanation. Often the range of ideas associated with forms follows a fairly definite pattern in each tribe. We may compare this condition with attitudes which we assume in regard to forms that may have varying types of symbolic connotation. To a Canadian, a British flag surmounted by maple leaves would be closely associated with patriotic feeling, and in this connection the maple leaf has a definite significance; in other combinations it may appear with quite a different meaning. A red maple leaf may be symbolic of the fall of the year. During the World War the bloody hand was used on posters to excite the populace to hatred, because it was symbolic of the imaginary cruelty of the German soldier and this association was assiduously cultivated by word and letter. In another setting a bloody hand may be a symbol of suffering or of sacrifice, as the red hand impressed on church walls or sanctuaries. A white rose may be a symbol of death or innocence. A crescent may bring up a thought of Turkey, a beautiful summer night, or it may be conceived purely as form. Not only is the significance of designs variable, the explanations of forms found on the same object seem often quite incoherent. The cases are not very numerous in which we find a clearly defined, consistent symbolism extending over the whole pattern. Judging from information given by Stephan in regard to paintings and carvings from Melanesia,[57] the explanations, varied and incoherent as they may be, are given without hesitation and although the same pattern elements are not given every time the same interpretation, the whole grouping, expressed at any given time, seems to be clear in the mind of the person who gives the explanation. [57] Emil Stephan, Südseekunst, p. 86. In by far the majority of cases the interpretation appears to us as entirely incoherent. The terms by which the same forms are designated by different individuals and at different times are so varied that it is difficult to assume that we are merely dealing with names of design elements.