3. Mr. Tylor’s theory (_Journal Anthrop. Institute_, xviii. 247), is that of ‘cutting’ ‘an outsider,’ not one of the family, not recognised till his first child is born. For various reasons, Mr. Crawley rejects this explanation, rightly, I venture to think. Mr. Crawley holds that the mother-in-law avoidance ‘seems to be causally connected with a man’s avoidance of his own wife,’ which he regards as only one aspect of the tabu between the two sexes, superstitiously regarded as dangerous to each other. But, like Mr. Atkinson, I much doubt whether the ‘avoidance,’ as far as it goes, of husband and wife is, in the main, the result of this superstition, though it plays its part on special occasions, as before the women sow the crops, and before the men go forth to war. Mr. Crawley’s suggestion that, as husband and wife are perpetually breaking the alleged sexual tabu, the mother-in-law becomes ‘a substitute to receive the onus of tabu,’ ‘a good instance of savage make-believe’ does not carry conviction. Mr. Atkinson’s theory seems ‘as good as a better’ (_Mystic Rose_, pp. 400-414).--A. L. [Footnote 1: Well-known instances of this marital shyness are the Spartan and Red Indian usage of only entering the wife’s bower, or wigwam, under cover of darkness. There are also Fijian and New Caledonian cases (Crawley, pp. 39-40). Mr. Crawley would regard these as cases of ‘sexual tabu,’ but various other cases may be readily conjectured.--A. L.] [Footnote 2: See Note at the end of chap. V.] [Footnote 3: With the consequent accession of power to the resident female thus accruing, capture would have become more rare. In any case it would certainly become connected in the minds of the more advanced and powerful tribes with the rape of women, other than their own, and probably inferior in type, mentally and physically; the comparison of this degraded captive in their midst with their own free females would not be at all likely to have led in connection with her to any spontaneous idea of symbolic consecration in marriage, or aught else.] [Footnote 4: When two groups, despite the isolating tendency of the habit of capture, did at length form a union sufficiently close to permit of marriage by consent between the respective group members, then, with capture as regards outsiders still rife amongst them, we can understand how the symbol would come to be attached to the peaceful connubium.] [Footnote 5: ‘Phratries’ are here meant, where the word ‘clan’ is used, or local totem groups.--A. L. Cf. Note, p. 260.] [Footnote 6: The exact relation of each to the females being defined by the classificatory system by generations.] [Footnote 7: As mentioned by Tylor.] [Footnote 8: Here I really do not know what ‘clan’ is meant to denote--‘phratry,’ I think.--A. L.] [Footnote 9: See Mr. Crawley’s ‘Sexual tabu’ theory of this avoidance, _Mystic Rose_, pp. 399-414.--A. L.]