a Wolf was considered brother to a Wolf of any other tribe, and might not marry a Wolf girl, who was considered as his sister, but he might marry a Deer or a Heron. In contrast with such rules is the practice of endogamy, or “marrying-in,” as among some Arab tribes, who habitually marry cousins. But it will be found that the two rules often go together, as where a Hindu must practically marry within his own caste, but at the same time is prohibited from marrying in his own gotra or clan. Researches into totem-laws are apt to bring the traveller into contact with other relics of the ancient social institutions in which these laws are rooted, especially the practice of reckoning descent not on the father’s side, as with us, but on the mother’s side, after the manner of the Lycians, whose custom seemed extraordinary to the Greeks in the time of Herodotus, but may be still seen in existence among native tribes of America or in the Malay islands. Even the system of relationship familiar to Europeans is far different from those of regions where forms of the “classificatory system” prevail, in which father’s brothers and mother’s sisters are called fathers and mothers. In inquiring into native laws of marriage and descent, precautions must be taken to ensure accuracy, and especially such ambiguous English words as “uncle” or “cousin” should be kept clear of. Another point on which travellers have great opportunity of seeing with their own eyes the working of primitive society is the holding and inheritance of property, especially land. Notions derived from our modern law of landlord and tenant give place in the traveller’s mind to older conceptions, among which individual property in land is hardly found. In rude society it is very generally the tribe which owns a district as common land, where all may hunt and pasture and cut fire-wood; while, when a family have built a hut, and tilled a patch of land round it, this is held in common by the family while they live there, but falls back into tribe-land if they cease to occupy it. This is further organised in what are now often called “village communities,” which may be seen in operation in Russia and India, where the village fields are portioned out among the villagers. Those who have seen them can understand the many traces in England of the former prevalence of this system in “common fields,” etc. There is the more practical interest in studying the working of this old-world system from the light it throws on projects of communistic division of land, which in such villages may be studied, and its merits and defects balanced. On the one hand it assures a maintenance for all, while on the other it limits the population of a district, the more so from the obstinate resistance which the counsel of “old men” who manage a village always oppose to any improved method of tillage. Not less perfectly do the tenures existing in many countries show the