> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains
Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham,
Opuscula, 346, 1860.
> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.
= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and
tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.
> Mai´-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 282, 1877 (same as
Mai´-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586
(vocabs. of Kon´-kau, Hol-o´-lu-pai, Na´-kum, Ni´-shi-nam, “Digger,”
Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sekumne, Tsamak).
> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers
this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).
> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 313, 1877
(distinguishes them from Maidu family).
X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
476, 1878 (Ochecumne, Chupumne, Secumne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne,
Yasumne, etc.; “altogether about 26 tribes”).
The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni,
Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted
for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale.[77] This was one of
the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as
derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be
divided. “These races resembled one another in every respect but
language.”
[Footnote 77: U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, p. 631.]
Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sekumne, and Tsamak. Hale
did not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for a
family, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settled
later.