From Konawur we have three monosyllabic vocabularies, the Sumchu, the Theburskud, and the Milchan; but the exact amount to which the Tibetan and the Hindú populations indent each other along the western Himalayas is more than I can give. Here end the monosyllabic tongues spoken in British India. But they fringe the Himalayas throughout, and occur in the country of Gholab Singh, as well as in the independent rajahships between the Sutlege and Cashmeer. My latest researches have carried them even further westward than Little Tibet; as far as the Kohistan, or mountain country, of Cabul--the Der, Lughmani, Tirhai, and other languages, known, wholly or chiefly, through the vocabularies of Lieutenant Leach, being essentially monosyllabic in structure, and definitely connected with the tongues of Tibet, and Nepâl in respect to their vocables. But this is episodical to the subject--a subject still requiring the notice of a very important phenomenon. _Polyandria_[34] is a term in ethnology, even as it is in botany. Its meaning, however, is different. Etymologically, it denotes a form of _polygamy_. _Polygamy_, however, being restricted to that particular form of marriage which consists in a multiplicity of _wives_, _polyandria_ expresses the reverse, _viz._, the plurality of _husbands_. At the first glance, the word _polyandria_ looks like a learned name for a common thing; and suggests the inquiry as to how it differs from simple promiscuity of intercourse; or, at least, how far the Tibetan wife differs from the fair frail one who was always constant to the 85th regiment. The answer is not easy. Still it is certain that some difference exists--if not in form, at least, in its effects. One of these, in certain countries where _polyandria_ prevails, is the law of succession to property. This follows the female line, rather than the male. Again--the marriage of the widow with the surviving brother of her husband, is polyandria under another form. What the exact polyandria of Tibet is, is uncertain. I am not prepared to deny its existence even in so extreme a form as that of _one woman being married to several husbands, all alive at once_. Still, I think it more likely that either the circle of community was limited to certain degrees of relationships, or else that the multiplied husbands were successive, rather than simultaneous. Still, the facts of the Tibetan _polyandria_ require further investigation.