It is impossible here to do more than indicate the character of the evidence by which Westermarck powerfully supports his conclusion. Among the Greenlanders, for instance, "it would be reckoned uncouth and blamable, if a lad and a girl, who had served and been educated in one family, desired to be married to one another." It is even "preferred that the contracting parties should belong to different settlements."[385] Among the Kandhs, according to Colonel Macpherson, "marriage cannot take place even with strangers who have been long adopted into, or domesticated with, a tribe;" and the Cis-Natalian Kafirs are reputed to "dislike marriage between persons who live very closely together, whether related or not."[386] Further proof is derived from the fact that "many peoples have a rule of exogamy, which does not depend on kinship at all." Piedrahita, in the seventeenth century, "relates of the Panches of Bogota that the men and women of one town did not intermarry, as they held themselves to be brothers and sisters, and the impediment of kinship was sacred to them; but such was their ignorance that, if a sister were born in a different town from her brother, he was not prevented from marrying her."[387] So also the "Yaméos, on the river Amazon, will not suffer an intermarriage between members of the same community 'as being friends in blood, though no real affinity between them can be proved;'" and the Uaupés, of the same region, "do not often marry with relations, or even neighbours, preferring those from a distance, or even from other tribes."[388] [385] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 321, citing EGEDE, _Description of Greenland_, 141; NANSEN, _The First Crossing of Greenland_, II, 330. [386] WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 321, citing MACPHERSON, _Memorials of Service in India_, 69. [387] TYLOR, _On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions_, 268; PIEDRAHITA, _Historia general_ (1688), 11; WESTERMARCK, _op. cit._, 321. [388] _Ibid._, 322; WALLACE, _Travels on the Amazon_, 497.