Now we have tried to explain the reckoning in the female line, by the differentiation, in the supposed original local totem group, of the captive women, each retaining, and handing on to her children, the name of her own totem group, this bequest of the totem name continuing into the tribal state of peaceful betrothals. But Mr. Tylor’s theory of the first stage (husband goes to live with wife), implies a peaceful state, and groups not hostile. For the reasons given, early hostility and sexual jealousy, I am unable to hold that, in the beginning, husbands always joined their wives’ groups. It seems, granting hostility and jealousy, to be impossible. A Malay example of polygamy plus residence with wives’ relations, proves nothing for primitive man. Therefore we need to know the exact stage of culture of the peoples among whom the husbands go as subdued hangers-on, ‘not recognised,’ into the wife’s family. Are these people all precisely primitive? The ‘husband to wife’ stage implies peaceful relations. These were produced, on my theory, by the arrangement of the phratries. When these are once constituted, the husband may go to live with the wife’s family as much as he pleases. But I fail to see how he could have done so ‘in the beginning.’ Moreover I am disinclined to suppose that exogamy was instituted for the purpose of strengthening a group by matrimonial alliances. _Bella gerant alii, tu, felix Austria, nube!_ Exogamy has this effect, but it was not devised purposely to produce this effect. I may casually remark that Mr. Tylor mentions an Assineboin case in which the husband enters ‘his lodge,’ where his father and mother-in-law ‘shirk’ or avoid him. But, in the next page but one, the lodge is described, not as the husband’s, but as that of the father and mother-in-law.[33] Whose lodge was it really? Was the husband staying with his wife’s family, or were the old people on a visit to their married daughter? Among several Australian tribes, a feigned form of capture precedes marriage.[34] Is this a survival of actual capture in the stage of hostility, the pre-tribal stage? Or is it the result of girlish modesty in the bride? Note: Mr. Morgan’s ‘Reformatory Movement’: It is proper to note that, in his preface to _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_ (p. 5), Mr. Morgan wrote, ‘it is not supposable that savages design, consciously, reformatory movements in the strict sense.’ For his theory cannot escape the conclusion that, in fact, they did. [Footnote 1: _Op. cit._ p. 61.] [Footnote 2: Spencer and Gillen, p. 57.] [Footnote 3: _Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family_ (1871); and _Ancient Society_ (1877); earlier in _The League of the Iroquois_ (1854).] [Footnote 4: So Mr. Fison candidly states, and Mr. Morgan saw his work, and wrote an introductory essay. _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 99.] [Footnote 5: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, pp. 160-161.] [Footnote 6: _Ancient Society_, pp. 49-50.]