[209] MUCKE, _Horde und Familie_, 31 ff., _passim_. [210] KAUTSKY, "Entstehung der Ehe und Familie," _Kosmos_, XII, 194-98, 256. On the other hand, McLennan, in his well-known controversy with Morgan,[211] insists that the system of nomenclature is merely a "system of mutual salutations," urging the fact that most of the peoples having it possess also "some well-defined system of blood-ties."[212] Yet he believes that the Malayan nomenclature, which lies at the basis of Morgan's classificatory system, "had its origin in some early marriage-law."[213] Starcke criticises this inconsistency,[214] and comes to the conclusion, after examination of the whole question, that the "nomenclature was in every respect the faithful reflection of the juridical relations which arose between the nearest kinsfolk of each tribe. Individuals who were, according to the legal point of view, on the same level with the speaker, received the same designation."[215] In substantial harmony with this opinion are the results of Westermarck's researches.[216] According to his view the classificatory nomenclatures are merely terms of address, used to denote the sex, relative age, or the "external, or social relationship in which the speaker stands to the person whom he addresses."[217] [211] See _Studies_, I, 249-315; II, 304 ff.; and the reply of MORGAN, _Ancient Society_, 509 ff. [212] _Studies_, I, 270, 271, 273. [213] _Studies_, I, 277. The form of marriage referred to is Nair polyandry. So the Turanian system is referable to Thibetan polyandry. _Cf._ MORGAN, _op. cit._, 517 ff. [214] _Primitive Family_, 181. [215] _Ibid._, 207, 171-208. STARCKE is criticised by CUNOW, _Australneger_, 165, for lack of thoroughness and consistency in his examination of the classificatory systems. [216] _History of Human Marriage_, chap. v, 82 ff. [217] _Ibid._, 90. LUBBOCK, _Origin of Civilization_, 162-203, criticises Morgan's views as to the classificatory systems and concludes that the "terms for what we shall call relationships are, among the lower races of men, mere expressions for the results of marriage customs, and do not comprise the idea of relationship as we understand it; that, in fact, the connection of individuals _inter se_, their duties to one another, their rights, and the descent of their property, are all regulated more by the relation to the tribe than by that to the family; that, when the two conflict, the latter must give way" (202). TYLOR, _On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions_, 261-65, discovers a close relation between exogamy and the classificatory system. Thus out of fifty-three tribes with that system thirty-three observe the rule of exogamy (264).