9. Further, Mr. Risley seems to be certainly right in dwelling on the fact that while they have sections both of the territorial and eponymous class, the former regulate the exogamy of the tribe, and not the latter. Many lower castes have adopted Brâhmanical gotras; but it is unreasonable to suppose that if the Bhuînhârs were originally Brâhmans, and as such necessarily provided with a set of real Brâhmanical gotras, they would deliberately have discarded them and adopted a tribal organization of the territorial type. On this ground he regards them as more probably a branch of the Râjputs. 10. The question then of the origin of the Bhuînhârs is not capable of exact determination. Their traditions, customs, and appearance point all to a Brâhmanical origin; their tribal organization seems to show that they are not, as is asserted by some, Brâhmans, who for a reason obviously inadequate, have been degraded from their original position. They may be a real branch of the Aryan stock, who in very remote ages colonised the part of the country which they occupy at present, and being reduced by the exigencies of their position to abrogate their sacerdotal functions, took to a life of war and agriculture, and in consequence of this organized their tribe in a manner analogous to those of the early Kshatriya settlers. [Tribal organisation.] 11. As has been already said, the tribal divisions of the Bhuînhârs are organised on both the territorial and eponymous systems. Of the former the chief sub-divisions in the eastern part of these Provinces are the Kinwâr, Donwâr, Sakarwâr, Baghochhiya, Bemuwâr, Karenawa, Kotraha, Karmâi, Kolhaniyân, Athariya, Jaithariya, Chaudhari, Kotaha, Sobraniyân, Belhariya, Domkatâr, Baksariya, Eksariya, Gautamiya, Titiha, Bhaiwadh, Kolaha, Sorhaniya, Biruâr, Surohau, Birramiya, Kahatwâr, Mirzapuri, Raikwâr and Parasiya. Besides these are a number of sub-divisions of the Brâhmanical type, such as Dikshit, Garga, Gautam, Sândilya, Pânrê, Dûbê, Tiwâri, Upâdhya, Pâthak, Shukl, Kapilgotri, Kausik, Bhâradwâja, and Payâsi Misr. They further enumerate eighty-four of the regular Brâhmanical gotras, such as Kasyapa, Vasishtha, Parâsara, Bhârgava, Vatsya, Katyâyana, Gargya, Gobhila, Angiras, and so on. But in carrying out the rules of exogamy the mûl or territorial section is alone taken account of, and not the Brâhmanical gotra. With this exception the prohibited degrees follow the standard Brâhmanical formula. Some of these sections are possibly totemistic, such as the Baghochhiya or “tiger” (bâgh); Domkatâr, “Dom’s knife,” Belhariya, from the bel tree; and these sections carry with them some degree of inferiority, which results in a form of hypergamy. The Census returns give no less than four hundred and fifty-eight Bhuînhâr sections: but here the territorial sections and the Brâhmanical gotras are mixed up together. The most important local sections according to these returns are the Chaudhari, Gautam, and