which tribe an individual belongs; but to the casual observer, there are no visible shades of difference.  In each of the four tribes, except the Mequachake, the chiefs owe their authority to merit, but in the last named, the office is hereditary.  Of the origin of the Piqua tribe, the following tradition has been recited:[A] “In ancient times, the Shawanoes had occasion to build a large fire, and after it was burned down, a great puffing and blowing was heard, when up rose a man from the ashes!—­hence the name Piqua, which means a man coming out of the ashes.”  Mequachake, signifies a perfect man.  To this tribe the priesthood is confided.  The members, or rather certain individuals of it, are alone permitted to perform the sacrifices and other religious ceremonies of the tribe.[B] The division of the tribe into bands or totems, is not peculiar to the Shawanoes, but is common to several other nations.  One of the leading causes of its institution, was the prohibition of marriage between those related in a remote degree of consanguinity.  Individuals are not at liberty to change their totems, or disregard the restraint imposed by it on intermarriages.  It is stated in Tanner’s narrative, that the Indians hold it to be criminal for a man to marry a woman whose totem is the same as his own; and they relate instances where young men, for a violation of this rule, have been put to death by their nearest relatives.  Loskiel, in his history of the Moravian missions, says, the Delawares and Iroquois never marry near relatives.  According to their own account, the Indian nations were divided into tribes for the sole purpose, that no one might, either through temptation or mistake, marry a near relation, which is now scarcely possible, for whoever intends to marry must take a person of a different totem.  Another reason for the institution of these totems, may be found in their influence on the social relations of the tribe, in softening private revenge, and preserving peace.  Gallatin, on the information derived from a former Indian agent[C] among the Creeks, says, “according to the ancient custom, if an offence was committed by one or another member of the same clan, the compensation to be made, on account of the injury, was regulated in an amicable way by the other members of the clan.  Murder was rarely expiated in any other way than by the death of the murderer; the nearest male relative of the deceased was the executioner; but this being done, as under the authority of the clan, there was no further retaliation.  If the injury was committed by some one of another clan, it was not the injured party, but the clan to which he belonged, that asked for reparation.  This was rarely refused by the clan of the offender; but in case of refusal, the injured clan had a right to do itself justice, either by killing the offender, in case of murder, or inflicting some other punishment for lesser offences.  This species of private war, was, by the Creeks, called, ’to