I came across the paragraph in question unfortunately only after the MS. of the present chapter had been finished and the foregoing chapters had been printed. The opinion of Sir Laurence Gomme would also have been of value in support of the views expressed in the Introduction, pp. 6, 7, where I try to show that it is meaningless to use the word "family" as a rigidly determined concept of universal application. "The family as seen in savage society, and the family as it appears among the antiquities of the Indo-European people, are totally distinct in origin, in compass and in force" (Sir Laurence Gomme, _loc. cit._, pp. 236, 237). And the author applies his criticism to the same two writers who have been the objects of my attacks (Mr. A. Lang and Mr. N. W. Thomas, see _op. cit._, p. 236, footnote 1). And, again, Sir Laurence Gomme argues that the unqualified use of the term "family" is very harmful, "because of the universal application of this term to the smallest social unit of the civilized world, and because of the fundamental difference of structure of the units which roughly answer to the definition of family in various parts of the world" (_op. cit._, p. 235). Certainly there is also a _fundamental analogy_ of structure between all forms of human family; but the problem must be set forth and it must be acknowledged that this social unit undergoes deep changes as other elements of social structure change. It may also be pointed out for the sake of completeness that in the great majority of human societies parental kinship assumes the form of consanguinity; the ideas that underlie kinship are generally gathered round the facts of procreation. These facts are connected with such deep and powerful instincts and feelings that in the majority of cases they naturally shape and influence the ideas of maternity and paternity. But the few exceptions to this rule which we meet with in very primitive societies are of the highest theoretical interest, both from the evolutionist's and psychologist's point of view. The final remark I would like to make here is on the well-known fact that physiological maternity is much more easily ascertainable than physiological paternity. Paternal kinship, therefore, will much more frequently differ from what we called consanguinity than maternal kinship. But some of the Australian examples and our previous general considerations should make us cautious in laying down _a priori_ any assertion of the purely physiological character of maternity. II SOME EXAMPLES OF KINSHIP IDEAS SUGGESTED BY THE AUSTRALIAN FOLK-LORE