> Yuma, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 94, 101, 1856
(includes Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave, Diegeño). Latham in Trans.
Philolog. Soc. Lond., 86, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860 (as
above). Latham in addenda to Opuscula, 392, 1860 (adds Cuchan to the
group). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 420, 1862 (includes Cuchan,
Cocomaricopa, Mojave, Dieguno). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877
(mentions only U.S. members of family). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp.
(Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 479, 1878 (includes Yumas, Maricopas,
Cuchans, Mojaves, Yampais, Yavipais, Hualpais). Bancroft, Nat. Races,
III, 569, 1882.
= Yuma, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (habitat and dialects
of family). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 413, 414,
1879.
> Dieguno, Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 75, 1854
(includes mission of San Diego, Dieguno, Cocomaricopas, Cuchañ, Yumas,
Amaquaquas.)
> Cochimi, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 87, 1856 (northern
part peninsula California). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 471,
1859 (center of California peninsula). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las
Lenguas de México, map, 1864. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and
So. Am.), 476, 1878 (head of Gulf to near Loreto).
> Layamon, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (a dialect
of Waikur?). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil.,
423, 1862.
> Waikur, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 90, 1856 (several
dialects of). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil.,
423, 1862.
> Guaycura, Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map,
1864.
> Guaicuri, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476,
1878 (between 26th and 23d parallels).
> Ushiti, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (perhaps a
dialect of Waikur). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
> Utshiti, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862 (same as Ushiti).
> Pericú, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 353, 1860. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de
México, map, 1864.
> Pericui, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878
(from 23° N.L. to Cape S. Lucas and islands).
> Seri, Gatschet in Zeitschr. für Ethnologie, XV, 129, 1883, and
XVIII, 115, 1886.
Derivation: A Cuchan word signifying “sons of the river” (Whipple).
In 1856 Turner adopted Yuma as a family name, and placed under it
Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave and Diegeno.
Three years previously (1853) Latham[114] speaks of the Dieguno
language, and discusses with it several others, viz, San Diego,
Cocomaricopa, Cuohañ, Yuma, Amaquaqua (Mohave), etc. Though he seems to
consider these languages as allied, he gives no indication that he
believes them to collectively represent a family, and he made no formal
family division. The context is not, however, sufficiently clear to
render his position with respect to their exact status as precise as is
to be desired, but it is tolerably certain that he did not mean to make
Diegueño a family name, for in the volume of the same society for 1856
he includes both the Diegueño and the other above mentioned tribes in
the Yuma family, which is here fully set forth. As he makes no allusion
to having previously established a family name for the same group of
languages, it seems pretty certain that he did not do so, and that the
term Diegueño as a family name may be eliminated from consideration. It
thus appears that the family name Yuma was proposed by both the above
authors during the same year. For, though part 3 of vol. III of Pacific
Railroad Reports, in which Turner’s article is published, is dated 1855,
it appears from a foot-note (p. 84) that his paper was not handed to Mr.
Whipple till January, 1856, the date of title page of volume, and that
his proof was going through the press during the month of May, which is
the month (May 9) that Latham’s paper was read before the Philological
Society. The fact that Latham’s article was not read until May 9 enables
us to establish priority of publication in favor of Turner with a
reasonable degree of certainty, as doubtless a considerable period
elapsed between the presentation of Latham’s paper to the society and
its final publication, upon which latter must rest its claim. The Yuma
of Turner is therefore adopted as of precise date and of undoubted
application. Pimentel makes Yuma a part of Piman stock.
[Footnote 114: Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.]