nothing to do either with consanguinity or with _patria potestas_. [543] _Loc. cit._, p. 2. [544] _Ibid._ [545] See above, p. 182. [546] _Loc. cit._, p. 2. [547] _Loc. cit._, p. 7. [548] _Ibid._ [549] _Loc. cit._, p. 8. In the new work of Prof. Frazer there are also some pages touching on this point. Although he distinguishes well between the _physiological_ and _social consanguinity_,[550] still in another place he says, speaking of the Central Tribes: "Denying as they do explicitly that the child is begotten by the father, they can only regard him as the consort, and in a sense as the owner of the mother, and, therefore, as the owner of her progeny, just as a man who owns a cow owns also the calf she brings forth. In short, it seems probable that a man's children were viewed as his property long before they were recognized as his offspring." It is impossible to agree with this opinion. The word "property" can in no strict sense be applied to the relation between father and child in Australia. Besides the author does not even clearly indicate in what sense he uses the word; and this word appears here only as a metaphor. Moreover, it is obvious that this opinion implies opposition between consanguinity and the legal category of "proprietorship," and contrasts the words "property" and "offspring." [550] "Fatherhood to a Central Australian savage is a very different thing from fatherhood to a civilized European. To the European father it means that he has begotten a child on a woman; to the Central Australian father it means that the child is the offspring of a woman with whom he has a right to cohabit, whether he has actually had intercourse with her or not. To the European mind the tie between a father and his child is physical; to the Central Australian it is social."--_Loc. cit._, i. p. 236.