[3] Ibid. p. 409.
[4] Ibid. p. 385.
[5] Ancient Society, p. 391, Lewis H. Morgan.
[6] Kamilaroi and Kurnai, Lorimer and Fison. Cf. note at end of chapter. I have already stated my objections to the theory of 'group marriage.'—A. L.
[7] 'Totems arose to distinguish cousins as such.' This implies that the totem name was assigned to each group for a definite social purpose, the regulation of degrees of kin. But, on any feasible theory of the 'totem' it 'came otherwise,' and was only used as a mark of kinship after it had come, just as a place name might have been used, had it been equally convenient. On the system of descent of the totem on the female side, A (man), an Emu, marries B (woman), a Kangaroo. Their sons and daughters are Kangaroos. C, one of the sisters, marries D, a Witchetty Grub, her children are Kangaroos. E, C's brother, marries F, a Frog, his children are Frogs, and may, as far as the totem rule goes, marry their cousins, C's children, who are Kangaroos.—A. L.
[8] Studies in Ancient History, McLennan, p. 269 et seq.
[9] The most distinctive feature to-day in the inter-relations of generations is a most strict ordinance to celibacy between members of different generations.
[10] How can marriage be communal, granting Mr. Atkinson's views about sexual jealousy?—A. L.
[11] Where is sexual jealousy?—A. L.
[12] Cf. Mr. Tylor, J. A. I. xviii. 3, 265, who expresses the same opinion.