[90] Except for species that habitually breed by parthenogenesis. [91] The caution is perhaps unnecessary that it is not hereby intended to suggest a doubt of Mr. Galton’s researches or to question the proposals of the Eugenicals, whose labours are no doubt to be taken for all they are worth. [92] See, e. g., Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_, vol. ii, part ii; _Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1884–1885_, F. Boas, “The Central Eskimo.” [93] Cf. Basil Thomson, _The Diversions of a Prime Minister_, and _The Figians_. [94] The extent of this “quasi-personal fringe” of objects of intimate use varies considerably from one culture to another. It may often be inferred from the range of articles buried or destroyed with the dead among peoples on this level of culture. [95] A doubt may suggest itself in this connection touching such cultures and peoples as the pagan races of the Malay peninsula, the Mincopies of the Andaman Islands, or (possibly) the Negritos of Luzon, but these conceivable exceptions to the rule evidently do not lessen its force. [96] It may be pertinent to take note of the bearing of these considerations on certain dogmatic concepts that have played a part in the theoretical and controversial speculations of the last century. Much importance has been given by economists of one school and another to the “productivity of labour,” particularly as affording a basis for a just and equitable distribution of the product; one school of controversialists having gone so far against the current of received economic doctrine as to allege that labour is the sole productive factor in industry and that the Labourer is on this ground entitled, in equity, to “the full product of his labor.” It is of course not conceived that the considerations here set forth will dispose of these doctrinal contentions; but they make it at least appear that the productivity of labor, or of any other conceivable factor in industry, is an imputed productivity--imputed on grounds of convention afforded by institutions that have grown up in the course of technological development and that have consequently only such validity as attaches to habits of thought induced by any given phase of collective life. These habits of thought (institutions and principles) are themselves the indirect product of the technological scheme. The controversy as to the productivity of labor should accordingly shift its ground from “the nature of things” to the exigencies of ingrained preconceptions, principles and expediencies as seen in the light of current technological requirements and the current drift of habituation. [97] See Sophus Müller, _Vor Oldtid_, “Stenalderen,” and _Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_, 1906. [98] Cf. W. G. Sollas, _Ancient Hunters_. [99] See, e. g., Basil Thomson, _The Figians_, especially ch. iv, xiv, xxviii, xxxi.