[233] In general on the Australian class-systems see further, TYLOR, _Early History of Mankind_, 288; WAKE, _Marriage and Kinship_, chap. iv; KOVALEVSKY, _Tableau_, 13 ff.; LUBBOCK, _Origin of Civilization_, 104 ff., BERNHÖFT, in _ZVR._, IX, 6 ff.; MCLENNAN, _Studies_, II, 304 ff., where the reports of Grey, Ridley, and other observers are summarized; GROSSE, _Die Formen der Familie_, 49 ff., 58 ff., who, in the main, accepts Curr's conclusions; DAWSON, _Australian Aborigines_, 1, 2, 26-40; FOREST, "Marriage Laws of N. W. Australia," _Report 2d Meeting of Aust. Association Adv. Sci._ (1890), 653, 654; FISON, "Group-Marriage and Relationships," _ibid._, _4th Meeting_ (Tasmania, 1893), 688-97, criticising Westermarck, 717-20, criticising McLennan; MATHEW, "Australian Aborigines," _Jour. R. S. N. S. Wales_, XXIII, 335-49, criticising Morgan and McLennan. Consult also the references in the Bibliographical Note at the head of the chapter. For further discussion of Morgan's researches see BERNHÖFT, _Verwandtschaftsnamen und Eheformen_; POSADA, _Théories modernes_, 52-57; SCHROEDER, _Das Recht in der geschlechtl. Ordnung_, 18 ff.; CUNOW, _Australneger_, v-vii, 11 ff.; GROSSE, _op. cit._, 3 ff.; HELLWALD, _Die mensch. Familie_, 158 ff.; BEAUCHAMP, "Aboriginal Communal Life in America," _Am. Antiquarian_, IX, 343-50, attacking Morgan's views, holding that proper communism is not found among the red Indians; GIRAUD-TEULON, _Les origines du mariage_, 92-101, 169 ff.; FISON AND HOWITT, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, 99, 101, 149, 316 ff., who, for the Australian groups, sustain Morgan as opposed to McLennan; WAKE, _op. cit._, 15, 19, 112, 266 ff., 297 ff.; LETOURNEAU, _L'évolution du mariage_, 432, 433, who accepts Morgan's five forms of the family; KOVALEVSKY, _op. cit._, 9, 10; MAINE, _Early Law and Custom_, 195 ff., _passim_; PESCHEL, _Races of Man_, 224, 228 ff., who rejects Morgan's conclusions; LUBBOCK, "Development of Relationships," _Jour. Anth. Inst._, Feb., 1871. III. McLENNAN'S CONSTRUCTIVE THEORY McLennan's theory[234] starts also with man in a condition, as he conceives it, resembling that of other gregarious animals. The unions of the sexes are "probably, in the earliest times, loose, transitory, and in some degree promiscuous."[235] There is no idea of consanguinity, though men may always have been held together by that "feeling of kindred" which arises in "filial and fraternal affection."[236] Everywhere when society emerges from this condition kinship is traced in the female line. Originally paternity is uncertain,[237] hence the recognition of relationship through the mother must of necessity have preceded the parental and the agnatic systems;[238] and this order of development is never reversed.