After a promising surge of interest in 1970s, project of writing a history of Canadian anthropology appears to slipped into a state of somnolence. Regna Darnell has done more than anyone to wake us up to continuing importance of reflecting upon our history, not least in a typically lively and provocative to this journal (Darnell, 1998). I wish to respond to part of that comment here. First, I wish to protest Darnell's characterization of my attitude towards Edward Sapir's place in history of Canadian anthropology. Second, I want briefly to review evidence that convinces me that there were no direct Boasian influences in T.F. McIlwraith's field work among Nuxalk (Bella Coola) First Nation and in resulting monograph, The Bella Coola Indians. These are both very minor points Darnell touches upon in her paper. My comments are offered in spirit of building upon a fine and useful summary of state of our historical knowledge. I do not intend them as criticism of article as a whole.Darnell observes correctly that in Introduction to re-issued edition of The Bella Coola Indians I wrote that in from his position as Head of Anthropology Division in National Museum (Barker, 1992: xxv). I am embarrassed that I wrote retired instead of resigned, which is what I meant. All same, there is no justification for lumping me in with unnamed mass of Canadian anthropologists who, Darnell tells us, have been reluctant to recognize [Sapir's] contribution to Canadian anthropology (Darnell, 1998: 158). The Introduction is about T.F. McIlwraith and Nuxalk, not Sapir and development of Canadian anthropology. It is very clear from sentence and paragraph which contain offending phrase that I am referring only to undisputed fact that Diamond Jenness took over Anthropology Division after Sapir's departure in 1925. It is beyond me how anyone could construe any part of that Introduction as denying or belittling the continuing ties between Canadian and American anthropologies, if by this odd phrase Darnell means that Canadian anthropologists continued to be influenced by writings of their American colleagues after 1925 (ibid.). Sometimes a slip is just a slip -- not a slight.I turn now to question of American versus British influences upon McIlwraith's research and writing concerning Nuxalk people. Franz Boas casts such a huge shadow upon Northwest ethnology that it is not surprising that minor figures, like McIlwraith, tend to get subsumed into category of follower. Suttles and Jonaitis (1990: 78), for instance, list McIlwraith along with Jenness and Barbeau under heading of Boas's Students and Their Students, solely it would seem because of their association with Sapir. As Darnell notes, I also initially perceived Boasian elements to McIlwraith's approach to field work, especially attention he paid to texts (Barker, 1987: 255). Bruce Trigger, who began his distinguished career as an undergraduate student of McIlwraith's, provides some of most compelling evidence of an American influence. After securing a scholarship to send Trigger to Yale, McIlwraith confided that he thought of himself as a Boasian and regarded The Bella Coola Indians as an example of a Boasian study (Trigger, personal communication; cf. Darnell, 1998: 158). Trigger was left with impression that McIlwraith had spent a year at Yale's Peabody Museum after leaving Cambridge. That year inspired McIlwraith's keen interest in museum work and shaped his approach to Nuxalk field work.What I initially saw as Boasian influences dissolved upon a closer study of McIlwraith's detailed correspondence and text of The Bella Coola Indians itself. McIlwraith was no Boasian, at least in early 1920s. We can only speculate about why professor would later insist to one of his most promising students that he was a Yale man. …