The hypothesis of promiscuity, pp. 51, _et seq._—The evidence adduced in support of it, p. 52.—Notices of savage nations said to live promiscuously, pp. 52-55.—Some of the facts adduced, no instances of real promiscuity, pp. 55-57.—Most of the statements obviously erroneous, pp. 57-59.—The accuracy of the others doubtful, pp. 59, _et seq._—Even if correct, they cannot afford any evidence for promiscuity having prevailed in primitive times, pp. 60, _et seq._—The free cohabitation of the sexes before marriage, in some parts of the world, given as evidence of ancient promiscuity, p. 61.—Sexual intercourse out of wedlock rare, and unchastity on the part of the woman looked upon as a disgrace, among many uncivilized peoples, pp. 61-66.—The wantonness of savages in several cases due chiefly to the influence of civilization, pp. 66-70.—It is quite different from promiscuity, pp. 70, _et seq._—Customs interpreted as acts of expiation for individual marriage, p. 72.—Religious prostitution, _ibid._—_Jus primae noctis_ accorded to the wedding-guests or to the friends of the bridegroom, pp. 72-76.—The practice of lending wives to visitors, pp. 73-75.—_Jus primae noctis_ granted to a chief, lord, or priest, pp. 76-80.—Courtesans held in greater estimation than women married to a single husband, pp. 80, _et seq._ CHAPTER V A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY (_Continued_) The ‘classificatory system of relationship,’ pp. 82-84.—‘Marriage in a group’ and the ‘consanguine family,’ pp. 84, _et seq._—Mr. Morgan’s assumption that the ‘classificatory system’ is a system of blood ties, p. 85.—Terms for relationships borrowed from the children’s lips, pp. 85-87.—Other terms, pp. 87-89.—Mr. Morgan’s assumption not consistent with the facts he has himself stated, p. 89.—The terms for relationships originally terms of address, _ibid._—The names given chiefly with reference to sex and age, as also to the external, or social, relationship in which the speaker stands to the person whom he addresses, pp. 90-95.—No inference regarding early marriage customs to be drawn from the terms for relationships, pp. 95, _et seq._—The system of ‘kinship through females only,’ p. 96.—Supposed to be due to uncertain paternity, pp. 96, _et seq._—A list of peoples among whom this system does not prevail, pp. 98-104.—The inference that ‘kinship through females only’ everywhere preceded the rise of ‘kinship through males’ inadmissible from Mr. McLennan’s point of view, p. 105.—The maternal system does not presuppose former uncertainty as to fathers, _ibid._—The father’s participation in parentage not discovered as soon as the mother’s, though now universally recognized, pp. 105-107.—Once discovered, it was often exaggerated, p. 106.—The denomination of children and the rules of succession, in the first place, not dependent on ideas of consanguinity, p. 107.—Several reasons for naming children after the mother rather than after the