1. pouchi. 2. at croudou. 3. at croudi-pshi = 2-1. 4. agontad-acroudo = 2-2.

  COTOXO.[191]

1. ihueto. 2. ize. 3. ize-te-hueto = 2-1. 4. ize-te-seze = 2-2. 5. ize-te-seze-hue = 2-2-1.

  MBAYI.[192]

1. uninitegui. 2. iniguata. 3. iniguata dugani = 2 over. 4. iniguata driniguata = 2-2. 5. oguidi = many.

  TAMA.[193]

1. teyo. 2. cayapa. 3. cho-teyo = 2 + 1. 4. cayapa-ria = 2 again. 5. cia-jente = hand.

  CURETU.[194]

1. tchudyu. 2. ap-adyu. 3. arayu. 4. apaedyai = 2 + 2. 5. tchumupa.

If the existence of number systems like the above are to be accounted for simply on the ground of low civilization, one might reasonably expect to find ternary and and quaternary scales, as well as binary.  Such scales actually exist, though not in such numbers as the binary.  An example of the former is the Betoya scale,[195] which runs thus: 

1. edoyoyoi. 2. edoi = another. 3. ibutu = beyond. 4. ibutu-edoyoyoi = beyond 1, or 3-1. 5. ru-mocoso = hand.

The Kamilaroi scale, given as an example of binary formation, is partly ternary; and its word for 6, guliba guliba, 3-3, is purely ternary.  An occasional ternary trace is also found in number systems otherwise decimal or quinary vigesimal; as the dlkunoutl, second 3, of the Haida Indians of British Columbia.  The Karens of India[196] in a system otherwise strictly decimal, exhibit the following binary-ternary-quaternary vagary: 

6. then tho = 3 x 2. 7. then tho ta = 3 x 2-1. 8. lwie tho = 4 x 2. 9. lwie tho ta = 4 x 2-1.

In the Wokka dialect,[197] found on the Burnett River, Australia, a single ternary numeral is found, thus: 

1. karboon. 2. wombura. 3. chrommunda. 4. chrommuda karboon = 3-1.

Instances of quaternary numeration are less rare than are those of ternary, and there is reason to believe that this method of counting has been practised more extensively than any other, except the binary and the three natural methods, the quinary, the decimal, and the vigesimal.  The number of fingers on one hand is, excluding the thumb, four.  Possibly there have been tribes among which counting by fours arose as a legitimate, though unusual, result of finger counting; just as there are, now and then, individuals who count on their fingers with the forefinger as a starting-point.  But no such practice has ever been observed among savages, and such theorizing is the merest guess-work.  Still a definite tendency to count by fours is sometimes met with, whatever be its origin.  Quaternary traces are repeatedly to be found among the Indian languages of British Columbia.  In describing the Columbians, Bancroft says:  “Systems of numeration are simple, proceeding by fours, fives, or tens, according to the different languages...."[198] The same preference for four is said to have existed in primitive times in the languages of Central Asia, and that this form of numeration, resulting in scores of 16 and 64, was a development of finger counting.[199]