" ▁and ▁" de ath ", ▁which ▁he ▁reached ▁by ▁assumption ▁of ▁a ▁necessary ▁pro gression ▁from ▁" life " ▁to ▁" ag ric ulture " ▁to ▁" her b iv orous ▁animals ", ▁and ▁from ▁" de ath " ▁to ▁" war fare " ▁to ▁" be asts ▁of ▁pre y ". ▁For ▁that ▁matter , ▁the ▁co y ote ▁is ▁well ▁known ▁to ▁h unt ▁in ▁addition ▁to ▁sc av eng ing ▁and ▁the ▁ra ven ▁also ▁has ▁been ▁known ▁to ▁act ▁as ▁a ▁bird ▁of ▁pre y , ▁in ▁contrast ▁to ▁Lé vi - St ra uss ' s ▁conception . ▁Nor ▁does ▁that ▁conception ▁explain ▁why ▁a ▁sc aven ger ▁such ▁as ▁a ▁bear ▁would ▁never ▁appear ▁as ▁the ▁Tr ick ster . ▁Diam ond ▁further ▁remarks ▁that ▁" the ▁Tr ick ster ▁names ▁' ra ven ' ▁and ▁' co y ote ' ▁which ▁Lé vi - St ra uss ▁explains ▁can ▁be ▁arrived ▁at ▁with ▁greater ▁economy ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of , ▁let ▁us ▁say , ▁the ▁clever ness ▁of ▁the ▁animals ▁involved , ▁their ▁u bi qu ity , ▁el us iveness , ▁capacity ▁to ▁make ▁m isch ief , ▁their ▁und om estic ated ▁reflection ▁of ▁certain ▁human ▁tra its ." ▁Finally , ▁Lé vi - St ra uss ' s ▁analysis ▁does ▁not ▁appear ▁to ▁be ▁capable ▁of ▁explaining ▁why ▁representations ▁of ▁the ▁Tr ick ster ▁in ▁other ▁areas ▁of ▁the ▁world ▁make ▁use ▁of ▁such ▁animals ▁as ▁the ▁sp ider ▁and ▁mant is