[24] See _Handbook of the American Indians_, 2:845, 846 (the Yuma, Mohave, Ute, Apache, etc., use it). The Mescalero Apache do not derive their name from the use of the peyote, “mescal,” as Mooney stated, being so designated long before they knew or used peyote. In the second etymology see Siméon, _Dictionnaire_, 436; also Safford, _An Aztec Narcotic_, 293. See also La Barre, _Native American Beers_, 225. [25] Lumholtz, _Unknown Mexico_, 1:358. For “dry whiskey” see the _New Century Dictionary_, Supplement: “Mescal Buttons.” For the other names see Rouhier, _op. cit._, 4; Britton and Rose, _The Cactaceae_, 3:84 (the spelling pellote of Velasco, from Mooney, is a Castillianization of the Nahuatl); _Peyotes, datos para su estudia_, 209. The spelling pezote in Alarcón, _Tratato de las Supersticiones_, 131, is obviously a copyist’s error. [26] de Molina, _Vocabulario_, 80, “Peyutl—capullo de feda, o de gufano.” The Spanish o and u constitute a single phoneme in Nahuatl, according to Mr. Benjamin Whorf, so the vowel is purely a matter of recording. On the other hand, Reko’s etymology in _Was bedeutet das Wort Teo-Nanacatl?_ (lent through the courtesy of R. E. Schultes) is inadmissable. He writes: “Pe-yotl, Old-Aztec Pi-yautli, is quite clear in its etymology: Pi is the significative (or affix) for ‘little.’ ... Yau-tli is always something narcotic or strong narcotic-smelling substance. Yau- is the root, -tli the post-positive article (substantive significative).... A pi-yautli (pe-yotl) is therefore the mildly intoxicating poison, in contrast with Hua-yautli (today Guayule, sap of the Gum-tree, which smells very strong) which means extremely intoxicating.” This is an ad hoc forcing of an etymology on a word, according to Whorf: in the first instance “old Aztec” pi-yautli appears to be an assumed rather than a quoted form; but even so, -yautli should not give -yotl or -iotl of Sahagún’s recording, but an unchanged -yautli. If the rules for Nahuatl sound-change are to be observed, peyotl must come from an uncontracted stem of two syllables, plus the absolutive suffix, this stem being pe-yo; -yautli, on the other hand, must come from a contracted stem, originally of two syllables, ya-wi (the -i standing for a variable or unknown vowel), plus the absolutive suffix, having the form -tl when preceded by a vowel, -tli when preceded by a consonant, i.e., a contracted stem. As for the first syllable, pi- and pe- are absolutely distinct phonemically in Aztec. The etymology, therefore, is neither phonetically nor phonemically correct, and assumes random and unexplained sound changes. The writer is grateful to Mr. Whorf for the preceding information. P. Augustin Hunt y Cortes (in Rouhier, 7) derives peyotl from the active verb pepeyoni, pepeyon, “to move, to stir, to set into motion, to excite, to activate.” Other offerings are “child” and a derivation from peyonanic, “stimulate, goad, prick, incite.” These are untenable for the same reasons that Reko’s is.