[1878] Fison and Howitt, loc. cit. pp. 134-137. Cf. Farrer, ‘Primitive Manners and Customs,’ p. 244.
[1879] Mr. Bridges, in a letter. Cf. Idem, in ‘A Voice for South America,’ vol. xiii. p. 181; Hyades, in ‘Bull. Soc. d’Anthr.,’ ser. iii. vol. x. p. 331.
[1880] Powers, loc. cit. p. 207. Cf. ibid., p. 183.
[1881] Ellis, ‘Polynesian Researches,’ vol. i. p. 249.
[1882] McLennan, ‘Studies in Ancient History,’ p. 160.
[1883] Spencer, ‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p. 619-621.
[1884] Ibid., pp. 627, et seq.
[1885] Mr. Huth, in the first edition of his work, ‘The Marriage of Near Kin,’ suggests (p. 157) that marriage between parents and children is considered incestuous because marriage between old men and young women in general is considered so. In the second edition, Mr. Huth seems to have given up this most unfortunate hypothesis, as he says (p. 18) that ‘the prohibition of marriage with those who were regarded as near of kin was derived from the same causes which made exogamy imperative,’ that is, the causes suggested by Mr. Spencer.
[1886] Lubbock, ‘The Origin of Civilisation,’ pp. 135, et seq. Professor Wilken (in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol. ii. p. 612) accepts this explanation of the origin of exogamy, and considers it certain (ibid., pp. 618, 619, 623) that prohibitions of close intermarriage have everywhere originated in true exogamy.
[1887] McLennan, ‘Studies,’ &c., p. 345. Among the Australian Gournditch-mara, according to the Rev. J. H. Stähle, the man who captured a woman in war never kept her himself, but was compelled to give her to some one else (Fison and Howitt, loc. cit. p. 276).