Those who would uphold anger roused by capture as the cause of avoidance with the wife’s relatives, for instance, must be prepared to show that it would be strongest with the one who was most deeply interested in the wife, one whose voice in her destiny was of greater power than her own mother’s, and that was her maternal uncle, the head of her clan. Now I have failed as yet to find a single trace of such a case as avoidance between the latter and his sister’s daughter’s husband. Again, jealousy, or a desire for regulations in matters of sexual union, will explain certain details in the accounts we have received of individual cases which seem otherwise obscure or irrelevant. These have been overlooked, as they are minute, but from my point of view are full of significance when closely examined. Mr. Lubbock says,[11] quoting Franklin as to American Indians: ‘It is _extremely improper_ for a mother-in-law to speak or even look at him, i.e. her son-in-law.’ Quoting Baegert: ‘The son-in-law was not allowed _for some time_ to look into the face of his mother-in-law.’ Further, ‘among the Mongols a woman must not speak to her _father-in-law_, nor _sit down_ in his presence. Among the Ostiaks, _Une fille mariée évite autant qu’il lui est possible la présence du père de son mari tant qu’elle n’a pas d’enfant, et le mari pendant ce temps n’ose pas paraître devant la mère de sa femme_’ (Pallas). In China the father-in-law after the wedding-day never sees the face of his daughter-in-law again, he never visits her, and if they chance to meet he hides himself. Among the Kaffirs a married woman is required to _hlonipa_[12] her father-in-law, and all her husband’s male relations in the ascending line, i.e. to be cut off from all intercourse with them.