The words I have selected for the vocabulary are those which I think would be most likely to indicate relationship, when such existed. But as every comparative linguist is aware, neither these nor any words are free from the risk of ambiguity and equivocation. Thus, in many languages there are two or three different terms for “man,” as _homo_, _vir_ or _male_; “woman” is _wife_ or _female_; “sun” and “moon” are often merely descriptive terms or synonyms of day, light, night and darkness; the parts of the body have in American tongues the personal possessive noun prefixed or suffixed; what is worse, the terms for such may differ with the person, as in Kechua, where the word for “eye,” “arm,” etc., differ as it is _my_ or _thy_ eye, etc. “Hand” and “arm,” “foot” and “leg,” are frequently not discriminated, the corresponding words meaning properly “upper extremity,” “lower extremity,” etc.; and so on for almost every word that could be chosen. The proper inference to draw from these facts is, not that a comparison of vocabularies is worthless or nearly so, but just the contrary. Where we find that a short vocabulary, imperfect for the above reasons, and still more so for the general ignorance of linguistics on the part of collectors, and the varying values they give to the alphabets employed, yet reveals identities with others, we are justly authorized to consider such analogies as highly significant and suggestive of profounder comparisons. YUMA DIALECTS NEAR THE GULF OF CALIFORNIA.