marriage,' and is apparently simpler. In it, the differences between chief and secondary wives disappear; several men simply possess several wives in common. Because this form of group-marriage is the simpler, it is also usually regarded as the earlier. This view, however, is not susceptible of proof. The supposition rests simply and alone upon the consideration that, if a state of absolutely promiscuous sexual intercourse originally prevailed, the transition to an undifferentiated group-marriage without distinction of chief and secondary wives would be the next stage of development. The reverse, however, would obtain were monogamy the original custom. For the group-marriage with chief and secondary wives is, of course, more similar to monogamy than is undifferentiated group-marriage. Moreover, this order of succession is also in greater consonance with the general laws underlying social changes of this sort. As a matter of fact, it would scarcely be possible to find grounds for a transition from undifferentiated group-marriage to the 'Pirrauru system.' If we assume that there was a growing inclination for single marriage, it would be difficult to understand why the circuitous path of 'Pirrauru marriage' should have been chosen. On the other hand, it is very easy to see that the distinction between chief and secondary wives might gradually disappear. Indeed, this is what has almost universally happened wherever pure polygyny prevails. Wherever polygyny may be traced back to its beginnings, it always seems to have its origin in the combination of a chief wife with several secondary wives. Later, however, when the wife comes to be regarded as property, we find a formal co-ordination of the wives. Or, there may be a distinction that arises from the accidental preference of the husband, as in the case of the Sultan's favourite wife, though in modern times such choice has again been displaced by a law of more ancient tradition. The latter change, however, was the result of the external influence of the culture of Western Europe. Such a retrogressive movement, in the sense of a reapproach to monogamy, is foreign to the motives immanent in the development itself. Furthermore, 'Pirrauru marriage' is very easily explicable by reference to the same condition that best explains the origin of exogamy, namely, the custom of marriage by capture as practised between groups enjoying a tribal or cult relationship. The captured wife is the Tippamalku, or chief wife, of the captor; to the companions who assist the latter she becomes a Pirrauru, or secondary wife. This latter relation is at first only temporary, though it later becomes permanent, probably as a result, in part, of a dearth of women. By rendering his companions a similar service, the original captor in turn gains the chief wives of the former as his secondary wives. As frequently happens, the custom which thus arises outlives the conditions of its origin. This is all the more likely to happen in this