Roughly speaking it may be said that these totemic beliefs and theories of conception prevent the aboriginal mind from forming the idea of physiological paternity and even probably weaken the social importance of maternity. For the only cause of pregnancy is that a "spirit-child" entered the body of a woman. "The natives one and all in these tribes believe that the child is the direct result of the entrance into the mother of an ancestral spirit individual. They have no idea of procreation as being directly associated with sexual intercourse, and firmly believe that children can be born without this taking place. There are, for example, in the Arunta country certain stones which are supposed to be charged with spirit children, who can, by magic, be made to enter the bodies of women, or will do so on their own accord."[586] Accordingly no tie of blood can be supposed to exist between the father and his child; there is no room for any ideas of physiological paternity; in other words, using our terminology, social consanguinity between father and child does not exist.[587] This is the most general conclusion that can be drawn from the beliefs quoted. But in connection with this question there are still some details, some controversial points into which we must enter in order to dissipate any doubts as to the correctness of our general conclusions just mentioned, as well as of some subsequent reasonings. [586] This refers to the whole Central and North Central area. Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 330. In a short note of recent date (_Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562), we read that Prof. B. Spencer has found the same absence of physiological knowledge in the tribes living North-West of the "Northern Tribes" (from Roper River to Port Darwin). According to his opinion this belief obtains from the South Coast of Australia over a broad belt right through the Centre to the North Coast. (_Ibid._) [587] It may be remembered here that this is not in contradiction with the passage in M. A. von Gennep's work, _Mythes and Légendes d'Australie_, p. lxiii, implying that there is social but not physiological consanguinity between father and child in the Central Australian tribes. The difference in terminology is explained above, p. 178, footnote 1, and reasons are given explaining why I did not adopt M. A. von Gennep's terminology, although I completely share his views.