234 Mythical and Unsatisfactory. 



the contrary has so far been assumed. There is 

 one part of the so-called Malayan system in regard 

 to which his account does not satisfy me. If there 

 are several brothers, A, B, 6 y , and several sisters, 

 a, &, c, then, no doubt, in the consanguine family, 

 where A, B, C, and a, b, c, are intermarried, a s 

 children may be called children of A and B and 

 6, and similarly of & s children and c s children ; 

 but why should a s children be called 5 s and c s, 

 and J s children a s and c s, and c s children a s 

 and 5 s, as they are designated in the Malayan sys 

 tem ? Because, says Morgan, A, B, and C being 

 husbands of a, their children by 5 and c would 

 be &amp;lt;z s step-children, which relationship being un 

 recognized, they naturally fall into the category 

 of a s sons and daughters (p. 410). But this is 

 surely to attribute to primitive savages our own 

 modes of tracing relationship, founded upon mo 

 nogamous marriage. And when Morgan observes, 

 by way of proof, that &quot;among ourselves a step 

 mother is called mother, and a step-son a son,&quot; he 

 overlooks the fact that there is with us no other 

 mother, and the father is always the same. Nor 

 does the case have any analogy with that of call 

 ing A and B and (7 fathers. They are so called 

 because, although only one of them can be the fa 

 ther of the child, any one of them may have been, 



