The identity of the Seneca-Iroquois and the Tamil is demonstrated by a bare inspection. It is no part of my present purpose to attempt to show how this identity can be explained; but it may be premised that there are but four hypotheses conceivable for its explanation, which are the following: :- 1. By borrowing one from the other. 2. By accidental invention by different peoples in disconnected areas; treating the system as arbitrary and artificial. 3. By spontaneous growth or development in similar conditions of society and in disconnected areas; treating the system as natural. 4. By inheritance, with the blood, from a common original source.

The first assumes territorial connection, and the consequent Asiatic origin of the Ganowanian family and it may therefore be dismissed. The second is an impossible hypothesis. As the system embodies upwards of twenty independent particulars, the improbability of their accidental concurrence in the Seneca-Iroquois and the Tamil increases with the addition of each particular from the first to the last; becoming, finally, an impossibility. The third hypothesis is substantial. It assumes that the system is natural in its origin, and in accordance with the nature of descents; consequently, it must further assume that the ancestors of the Seneca-Iroquois and of the Tamilian people of India, if created in separate and independent zoological provinces, must not only have passed through the same experiences, but also have developed, through great reformatory movements, precisely the same sequence of customs and institutions, to have wrought out by natural development or organic growth the Ganowanian system in America and the Turanian system in Asia; the two remaining identical after having been transmitted with the blood through centuries of time. It will be found, in the sequel, and after the most critical examination, that the fourth hypothesis, that of its transmission with the blood from common ancestors, will prove the most satisfactory.

I am aware that the foregoing presentation of the Aryan, Malayan, Ganowanian, and Turanian systems of relationship is far too brief and incomplete to render entirely satisfactory the following solution of the origin of the classificatory system. But it will serve to indicate some of the conclusions to which the facts appear to tend.

The origin of the classificatory system, in view of its character and spread among the families of mankind, becomes a matter of deep importance. It is to be presumed that the recognized relationships were those which actually existed at the time the system was formed. If

this be true, then the system embodies a record of primitive customs and institutions of great significance. We have seen that the system of the Aryan family is a natural system, following the streams of the blood; but that it was founded upon marriage between single pairs. Wherefore it rests exclusively upon this form of marriage, and not upon natural suggestion. It is, at least, supposable that a state of society might have existed in the primitive ages in which marriage between single pairs, as well as the family in its modern sense, was entirely unknown. Whilst mankind were in this state, a system of consanguinity might have arisen entirely different from the Aryan form, and yet follow the streams of the blood, and be in strict accordance with the nature of descents. For example, it might rest, as before intimated, upon compound marriages in a communal family. In some such state of society as this the classificatory system must have originated.

I propose to take up the Malayan system of relationship as the earliest stage of the classificatory, and to submit a conjectural solution of its origin upon the assumed concurrent existence of certain customs and institutions. It will rest for the most part upon the assumed intermarriage or cohabitation of brothers and sisters in a communal family. After this I shall present a further conjectural solution of the origin of the remainder, or Turanian portion of the system, upon the basis of the Tribal Organization. These are the essential conditions; but they draw to themselves other customs and institutions of hardly secondary importance.

These solutions will enable us to construct upon them, as foundations, a great series of customs and institutions, in the order of their development, by means of which the human family raised itself through a long and savage experience from a state of promiscuous intercourse to a knowledge of the family in its modern sense.

Mankind, if one in origin, must have become subdivided at a very early period into independent nations, followed by the rapid formation of dialects and stock-languages, the latter repeated over and over again to the present time. Unequal progress has been made by these several stocks. Some of them still remain in a condition not far removed from the primitive; others are found in all the intermediate stages of progress on to complete civilization. It is not improbable that all the customs and institutions of mankind which have arisen at different epochs are still existing in some portions of the human family. Those

which have been most effective for man's advancement must have been of slow growth, and of still slower diffusion among the nations. They are to be regarded as the great remaining landmarks of man's progress, whilst the mass of minor influences which contributed to their adoption have fallen out of knowledge.

The customs and institutions relating to the family state, and in the probable order of their orgination, may be stated as the following:

I. Promiscuous Intercourse.

II. Intermarriage, or Cohabitation, of Brothers and Sisters. Giving
III. The Communal Family. (First Stage of the Family.)
IV. The Hawaiian Custom. Giving, with II.,

V. The Malayan Form of the Classificatory System of Relationship.

VI. The Tribal Organization. Giving

VII. The Turanian and Ganowanian Systems of Relationship.
VIII. Marriage between Single Pairs.

Giving

IX. The Barbarian Family. (Second Stage of the Family.)
X. Polygamy. Giving

XI. The Patriarchal Family. (Third Stage of the Family.)
XII. Polyandria.

XIII. The Rise of Property, with the Settlement of Lineal Succession

to Estates. Giving

XIV. The Civilized Family. (Present Stage of the Family.)

Causing

XV. The Overthrow of the Classificatory System of Relationship, and the Substitution of the Descriptive.

Given, the second and fourth customs, the origin of the Malayan system can be demonstrated from the nature of descents, and the relationships shown to be those actually existing. In like manner, the second, fifth, and sixth of these customs and institutions being given, the origin of the Turanian and Ganowanian systems can be explained in the same manner, and to the same effect. Whether, given the Turanian system of relationship, the antecedent existence of these customs and institutions can be legitimately inferred, will depend upon the probability of their prevalence from the nature of human society, and from what is known of its previous conditions. It may be confidently affirmed that this great sequence of customs and institutions, although in part hypothetical, will organize and explain the body of ascertained.

facts, with respect to the primitive condition of mankind, in a manner so singularly and surprisingly adequate as to invest it with a strong probability of truth.

All of these, except the first three, have existed within the historical period, and still prevail in large portions of the human family. The assumption, as to them, is limited to their mutual relations as members of a series."

With respect to the first three, namely, Promiscuous Intercourse, the Intermarriage of Brothers and Sisters, and the Communal Family, their prevalence will be assumed; although there is strong evidence tending to render probable the first two, and decisive evidence of the existence of communal families in the barbarous nations of the present time.

The Hawaiian custom, which has been explained, is the fourth in the series. It is a compound form of polygynia and polyandria, since, under one of its branches, the several brothers live in polygynia, and their wives in polyandria; and, under the other, the several sisters live in polyandria, and their husbands in polygynia. In other words, it is promiscuous intercourse within prescribed limits. Its existence, as a custom, seems to imply antecedent unregulated promiscuous intercourse, involving the cohabitation of brothers and sisters as its most common form; thus finding mankind in a state akin to that of the inferior animals. It seems probable that the Hawaiian custom still embodies the evidence of an organic movement of society to extricate itself from a worse condition than the one it produced. In effect, it was a compact between several brothers to defend their common wives, and a like compact between the husbands of several sisters to defend their common wives, against the violence of society; thus implying the existence of a perpetual struggle amongst the males for the possession of the females.

And this brings us to an important general proposition, namely, that the principal customs and institutions of mankind have originated in, and can only be explained as, great reformatory movements of society. If this sufficiently explains the origin of the Hawaiian custom, it must be regarded as one of a series of similar movements, by means of which mankind emerged from a state of promiscuous intercourse, and through a long and painful experience attained to marriage between single pairs, and finally to the family as it now exists.

I propose now to submit a conjectural solution of the origin of the