present." The explanations of similar usages advanced by McLennan and Westermarck, such as phallicism, are deemed inapplicable to these cases: SPENCER AND GILLEN, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, 92-111. Compare especially KOHLER, _Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe_, 64 ff., _passim_, who finds in the totem groups and classificatory systems of relationship, existing in Australia, America, and elsewhere, evidence of former group-marriage. But these usages are capable of a very different explanation. That they imply a primitive state of promiscuity is emphatically denied by Crawley. Like sacred prostitution, the customs of avoidance, the couvade, and marriage rites in general, according to his theory, they take their rise in the religious or superstitious ideas upon which sexual taboo rests.[148] [148] _Mystic Rose_, 236-66, 294-317, 347 ff., 468-85, _passim_. _Cf._ LANG, _Social Origins_, 87-111, _passim_. Adherents of the communistic theory are not entirely at one as to the phases in the development of marriage and the family. Very generally the family, regarded from the standpoint of authority and kinship, is said to pass from the unregulated horde through the maternal and the paternal to the parental or two-sided stage.[149] Thus Dargun declares that there is a tendency for the uterine system of kinship to give place to the paternal, but never the reverse.[150] Kohler takes the same position.[151] Lippert regards the history of social culture as beginning with the natural relation of mother and child, producing in course of evolution, long before "marriage" arose, the "primitive family" whose principle is mother-right, and which, in turn, under various influences, generally yields to the "old family" (_Altfamilie_) in its origin based, not on relationship, but on patriarchal power and possession.[152] Bernhöft denies the invariable sequence of mother-right and father-right;[153] and Kautsky maintains that the two systems are parallel, not successive, developments from the hetairism of the primitive horde.[154] [149] According to FRIEDRICHS, "Familienstufen und Eheformen," _ZVR._, X, 190 ff., the forms of the family are the following: (1) "die lose Familie;" (2) "die matriarchale, uterine Familie;" (3) "die patriarchale, agnatische Familie;" (4) "die moderne, zweiseitige Familie." [150] DARGUN, _Mutterrecht und Raubehe_, 12, 13. For exceptions, however, see his _Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht_, 29 ff., 35, 41, 46. [151] KOHLER, in _ZVR._, III, 393; IV, 266 ff. [152] LIPPERT, _Geschichte der Familie_, 4 ff., 218 ff.; _idem_, _Kulturgeschichte_, I, 76 ff., 90. [153] BERNHÖFT, "Zur Geschichte des eur. Familienrechts," _ZVR._, VIII, 401, 402. [154] KAUTSKY, "Die Entstehung der Ehe und Familie," _Kosmos_, XII, 338-48, especially 347; _cf._ MUCKE, _Horde und Familie_, 172 ff.