_Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship_, 231 ff.; _The Golden Bough_, 3rd ed.; _The Magic Art_, ii. 269 ff. Footnote i.8: _Early History of India_, 408. Footnote i.9: _Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, 1905, 1 ff. The tradition seems to have started earlier in Southern India, S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, _Ancient India_, 1911, 390 ff. Footnote i.10: _Journal Asiatic Society Bengal_, 1909, 167 ff. The criticism by Pandit Mohanlal Vishnulal Pandia (_ibid._, 1912, 63 ff.) is extremely feeble. Footnote i.11: E. S. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, i. 258 ff. Footnote i.12: K. D. Erskine, _Gazetteer Western Rajput States and Bikaner Agency_, A. i. 177. Footnote i.13: _Bombay Gazetteer_, I. Part i. 385; _Bombay Census Report, 1911_, i. 279; Smith, _Early History_, 413. Footnote i.14: _Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces_, iv. 441. Footnote i.15: D. R. Bhandarkar, _Journal Bombay Branch Royal Asiatic Society_, 1916, Art. xii. Footnote i.16: _The Golden Bough_, 3rd ed.; _The Magic Art_, i. 44 ff.; _Adonis, Attis, Osiris_, i. 42 f., 143 ff. Footnote i.17: Karsandas Mulji, _History of the Sect of the Mahārājas or Vallabhāchāryas_, London, 1865; _Report of the Mahārāj Libel Case_, Bombay, 1862; F. S. Growse, _Mathura_, 3rd ed. 283 f. Footnote i.18: V. A. Smith, _Akbar, The Great Mogul_, 162 ff. Footnote i.19: _History of Rome_, ed. 1866, iv. 209 ff. Footnote i.20: _Census Report, Rājputāna, 1911_, i. 132. Footnote i.21: _Some Records of Crime_, ii. 217 f. Footnote i.22: _View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages_, 12th ed. 1868, i. 186. Footnote i.23: ii. 315. Footnote i.24: “Ancient Indian Genealogies and Chronology,” “Earliest Indian Traditional History,” _Journal Royal Asiatic Society_, January 1910, April 1914. ----- PEDIGREE OF THE TOD FAMILY