The Evolution of Morality. 233 



that what our science of comparative language 

 leads us to expect ? They are rich in concrete, 

 poor in abstract, terminology. But what then 

 follows ? Why, that this so-called Malayan sys 

 tem of consanguinity and affinity is not based on 

 blood-ties (these not being, as later investigations 

 show, facts of primary perception), and has noth 

 ing at all to do with any particular form of the 

 family, but is simply a rough way of classifying 

 all the generations which might ever be known 

 to any individual. Under this system &quot; brother &quot; 

 is not one of the same blood, &quot;father &quot; is not one 

 wko begets, &quot; mother &quot; is not one who bears ; all 

 alike are descriptions of classes. Is there, then, 

 no method of describing relationships nearer? 

 The objection implied in the question touches 

 our hypothesis not more than the other. But, 

 fortunately, Morgan himself supplies an answer. 

 &quot; A descriptive system precisely like the Aryan 

 [i.e., the one we use] always existed both with 

 the Turanian and the Malayan &quot; (p. 484). The 

 latter would therefore seem to be merely a classi 

 fication of generations, to which, naturally enough 

 among communal societies, the same names were 

 applied. 



Besides, Morgan s hypothesis does not give an 

 unquestionable explanation of all the facts, though 



