several other ornithologists fully agree. The nasal features are plainly shown, and the “general contour of the bill is truly corvine.” See figure page 161. Thus is this supposed tropical acquaintance easily disposed of and the crow, certainly not a rare bird in that locality, substituted. A turkey buzzard is shown to be a hawk, and other foreign types claimed by Squier and Davis are disproved with ease. Out of forty-five carvings on pipes figured by them only five, by Henshaw’s tests, are correctly named. Some carvings, which they were unable to identify, Henshaw places without any effort. As for the so-called manatees, he believes they were intended for otter. The manatee is an earless animal with many peculiar features which do not appear in the Moundbuilder carvings, while ears do appear. This is what I mean by not giving “character” to carvings. It is a matter, largely, of perception. The Eskimo appears to have this perception developed to a considerable degree, and when he delineates an animal he knows he marks strongly its peculiar features, whatever else he may do. The element of imagination also comes in, for Amerinds often produce drawings or carvings of animals they think they have seen, or as they appeared to them in a sudden and fleeting glimpse, or vision. [Illustration: SO-CALLED ELEPHANT PIPE, IOWA Only two of the “elephant” pipes have been found and both by the same person. There is a doubt as to their genuineness. Even if genuine they are far from depicting the mastodon ] [Illustration: TOUCAN OF SQUIER AND DAVIS, POSSIBLY MEANT FOR A YOUNG EAGLE] [Illustration: TRIPOD VASE, CHIRIQUI. ⅓. LEGS MODELLED TO IMITATE FISH]