The incorrectness of taking only these two alternatives is shown by the three following considerations: (1) Such a view overlooks the facts discussed below, which show that there is actual kinship based on ideas neither physiological nor legal. (2) This way of interpreting facts operates with very indeterminate concepts, for we nowhere find any explanation of how to take the general term _legal_ in connection with a given aboriginal society, and still less are we told how such legal concepts as _potestas_, paternal authority, etc., are to be applied to a given aboriginal society. (3) If a definition of _law_ or _legal_ be given, it would plainly be seen that it is quite erroneous to consider any of these concepts as defining parental kinship. This is quite clear if we use the definition of _legal_ given above, p. 11. But even allowing a broad margin for the variations which may result from a varying definition of _legal_, it may be safely stated that in whatever way we might try to define this word, our definition must always involve factors of social pressure, stress and authority. In other words, the relation between two individuals may be considered _legal only_ when we imply that it is wholly and exclusively determined by the outward regulating control of the society and by a potential direct action of it. And in the case we are speaking of--that is, the relation between parent and child in low societies--there can be hardly any question of this. As will appear in the Australian case, this relation is left quite to itself, and it is regulated by the spontaneous emotional attitude of the father towards his child. No factor of any outer pressure or constraint enters into it, at least we are not informed of any such by the ethnographical evidence extant. The collection and analysis of the statements on this point given below[540] will show that there cannot be any question of potestas, authority, proprietorship, or anything of the kind. Neither social pressure nor economic interest bind the parents to their children, nor does any motive of this kind enter into this relation. [540] pp. 238 _sqq._; and pp. 254-256. As this subject is very important, some examples of the mode of reasoning just now criticized are set out here. These passages are quoted from works of very distinguished writers to show that the mistakes result from serious defects in sociological knowledge, and not from any accidental causes. And they are taken from passages which either refer exclusively to the Australian aboriginal society, or are exemplified by Australian facts.