> Shoshonees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 120,
133, 306, 1836 (Shoshonee or Snake only). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI,
218, 1846 (Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Gallatin
in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (as above). Gallatin,
ibid., 18, 1848 (follows Hale; see below). Gallatin in Schoolcraft,
Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3,
55, 71, 76, 1856 (treats only of Comanche, Chemehuevi, Cahuillo).
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 553, 649, 1859.
> Shoshoni, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846
(Shóshoni, Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.
> Schoschonenu Kamantschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17,
1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Shoshones, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 429, 1847 (or Snakes;
both sides Rocky Mountains and sources of Missouri).
= Shoshóni, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 154, 1877. Gatschet in Beach,
Ind. Misc., 426, 1877.
< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
477, 1878 (includes Washoes of a distinct family). Bancroft, Nat.
Races, III, 567, 661, 1882.
> Snake, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 120, 133,
1836 (or Shoshonees). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 1846 (as under
Shoshonee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 429, 1847 (as under
Shoshones). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 76, 1856 (as under
Shoshonees). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 552, 649, 1859 (as
under Shoshonees).
< Snake, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878
(contains Washoes in addition to Shoshonean tribes proper).
> Kizh, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 569, 1846 (San Gabriel language
only).
> Netela, Hale, ibid., 569, 1846 (San Juan Capestrano language).
> Paduca, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 415, 1847 (Cumanches,
Kiawas, Utas). Latham, Nat. Hist., Man., 310, 326, 1850. Latham (1853)
in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 73, 1854 (includes Wihinast,
Shoshoni, Uta). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 96, 1856.
Latham, Opuscula, 300, 360, 1860.
< Paduca, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 346, 1850 (Wihinast, Bonaks,
Diggers, Utahs, Sampiches, Shoshonis, Kiaways, Kaskaias?, Keneways?,
Bald-heads, Cumanches, Navahoes, Apaches, Carisos). Latham, El. Comp.
Phil., 440, 1862 (defines area of; cites vocabs. of Shoshoni,
Wihinasht, Uta, Comanch, Piede or Pa-uta, Chemuhuevi, Cahuillo,
Kioway, the latter not belonging here).
> Cumanches, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
> Netela-Kij, Latham (1853) in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 76,
1854 (composed of Netela of Hale, San Juan Capistrano of Coulter, San
Gabriel of Coulter, Kij of Hale).
> Capistrano, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes
Netela, of San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano, the San Gabriel or
Kij of San Gabriel and San Fernando).
In his synopsis of the Indian tribes[78] Gallatin’s reference to this
great family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of
“some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshonees, living on the waters of the
river Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them to
be found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of the
family name is to be found on page 306, where, in his list of tribes and
vocabularies, he places “Shoshonees” among his other families, which is
sufficient to show that he regarded them as a distinct linguistic group.
The vocabulary he possessed was by Say.
[Footnote 78: Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 1836.]
Buschmann, as above cited, classes the Shoshonean languages as a
northern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidence
presented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient.