86 



NATURE 



SJune 3, 1875 



were seen near the radiant, and that they were generally smaller 

 and had shorter tracks than the November meteors observed 

 between 1865 and 1870. The number seen was too small to be 

 called a shower ; at the maximum, however, the fall per hour 

 was nearly double that of ordinary nights. In short, I have no 

 doubt that they were Leonids, and think it highly probable that 

 they were derived from a distinct cluster which passed its peri- 

 helion in 1787 and 1820. We have therefore nine recorded 

 meteor-falls which indicate the existence of a second cluster of 

 Leonids, viz., those of a.d. 288, 855, 856, 1787, 1818, 1820, 

 1822, 1823, and 1852. The showers of 855 and 856 may be 

 somewhat doubtful. If derived from the same meteor-cloud as 

 the others, the dates would indicate considerable perturbations 

 either by Uranus or the earth. The displays have been much 

 less conspicuous than those of the major group, and hence the 

 phenomena have been less frequently observed. The period is 

 about 33 '33 years, while that of the other swarm, according to 

 Newton, is 33*25 years. Since their separation, therefore, the 

 latter has gained nearly two-thirds of a revolution in their rela- 

 tive motion. The estimates which have been made in regard to 

 the recent entrance of tha cluster into the planetary system must 

 consequently be rejected. Daniel Kirkwood 



Bloomington, Indiana, U.S.A., April 20 



Systems of Consanguinity 



In Nature, vol. xi. p. 401, I find a notice of the third 

 edition of Sir John Lubbock's valuable work on the "Origin 

 of Civilisation," in which the follov/ing paragraph occurs : — 

 "The facts with which he deals in this chapter [a new 

 one in that volume] have been taken from the voluminous 

 work of the American author, Mr. Morgan; but Sir John Lub- 

 bock, putting aside Mr. Morgan's theorising, has submitted a 

 view of them of his own. This, in the main, and as far as it 

 goes, we think, he has made out." 



In the same article the following paragraph also occurs : — 

 " One of Mr. Morgan's theories (for he has, or seems to have, 

 two which it is no business of ours to reconcile with each other) 

 is, that these systems are, to use the words of Sir John Lub- 

 bock, 'arbitrary, artificial, and intentional.'" 



These statements, to the last of which with your permission I 

 desire to reply, present the "American author "both harshly 

 and unfairly to the British public. The interpretation of these 

 systems of consanguinity, thus ascribed to me, is not mine; 

 neither is the interpretation given in my work on ' ' Systems of 

 Consanguinity." 



There are three or four places, and perhaps more, in that 

 volume in which I speak of the system of a particular people as 

 " artificial and complicated," and as "arbitrary and artificial," 

 without the qualification in each case which should, perhaps, 

 have been inserted. Thus, commenting on the same system 

 (Con, p. 392), I remark that " the chain of consanguinity has 

 been followed with great particularity, that the artificial and 

 complicated character of the system might be exhibited, as well 

 as the rigorous precision with which its minute details are ad- 

 justed." One who had read my work through could not have 

 been misled by this statement, which was intended to characterise 

 this system as it appeared on its face, and apart from all con- 

 siderations respecting its origin. On the next page but one 

 (p. 394) the same statement is repeated and qualified as follows : 

 " As a plan of consanguinity it [the same system] is stupendous 

 in form and complicated in its details ; and seemingly arbitrary 

 and artificial in its character when judged by ordinary standards." 



In a single and final chapter of that work (pp. 467-510), en- 

 titled " General Results," I discussed the three great systems of 

 consanguinity found in the principal families of mankind, and 

 indicated some of the general conditions they seemed to warrant. 

 My interpretation of these systems will there be found. To 

 this chapter a person would naturally turn if he wished to 

 know the views of the author on the precise question whether 

 the systems were to be regarded as artificial or natural. Among 

 other things, it contains what is prudently called a "conjec- 

 tural solution " of the origin of the Malayan system of con- 

 sanguinity, and also a similar solution of the origin of the 

 Turanian system. These solutions are presented and discussed 

 in connection with a series of fifteen prominent institutions and 

 customs of mankind, articulated in a sequence in the order of 

 their probable origination. It commences with " I. Promiscuous 

 Intercourse"; "II. Intermarriage, or Cohabitation of Brothers 

 and Sisters ;" and ends with "XV. The Overthrow of the Clas- 

 gificatory System of Relationship, and the Substitution of the 



Descriptive." In it are enumerated several successive forms of 

 marriage, several successive forms of the family, and the three 

 systems of consanguinity in their order of relation. It was 

 designed to illustrate the course of human progress from 

 savagery to civilisation ; one form of marriage being followed 

 by another, one form of the family by another, and one system 

 of consanguinity by another. It is a sequence of human progress 

 through the slow accumulations of experimental knowledge. 



At the end of the solution of the origin of the Malayan system, 

 which is founded upon the assumed intermarriage of brothers 

 and sisters in a group (the second member of the sequence), 

 occurs the following statement (p. 482) : — " Every blood rela- 

 tionship under the Malayan system is thus explained from the 

 nature of descents, and is seen to be the one actually existing, as 

 near as the parentage of individuals could be known. The 

 system, therefore, follows the flow of the blood, instead of 

 thwarting or diverting its currents. It is a natural rather than 

 an arbitrary and artificial system." The reader will notice that 

 it was this form of marriage which created the Malayan system. 



Again, at the end of the solution of the origin of the Turanian 

 system, and after showing that the latter was derived from the 

 Malayan, occurs the following statement (p. 486) : " If the pro- 

 gressive condition s of society during the ages of barbarism, from 

 which this solution is drawn, are partly hypothetical, the system 

 itself, as thus explained, is found to be simple and natural instead 

 of an arbitrary and artificial creation of human intelligence. " 



In prosecuting this investigation one of the questions to 

 be determined was whether these systems were artificial or 

 natural. If the former, they are without ethnological value ; but 

 if natural systems, showing the relationships which actually ex- 

 isted when they were respectively formed, then they would pos- 

 sess immense value, because they concerned and demonstrated a 

 condition of ancient society of which previously we had no defi- 

 nite conception. From each system, in such a case, can be 

 deduced, with almost unerring certainty, the form of marriage 

 and of the family in which it originated. It was by this course 

 of reasoning that I discovered the necessary antecedent existence 

 of the intermarriage of brothers and sisters in a group to account 

 for the existence of the Malayan system of consanguinity. This 

 fact gives us the starting-point in which ancient society com- 

 mences, with the proof that it did so commence. Hence the 

 second member of the sequence above-named. This sequence 

 on its face, and these solutions in express terms, treat these 

 systems as natural in every respect. 



In an address before the London Anthropological Institute in 

 187 1 upon the contents of the same volume on Consanguinity, 

 Sir John Lubbock places me in the same position, and leaves 

 me there. He remarks in that address (Journal of A. I., 1871, 

 p. 6), which I presume forms the basis of "the new chapter," 

 that " Mr. Morgan, from several passages, appears to regard the 

 system as arbitrary, artificial, and intentional ; " from which he 

 takes occasion to dissent. I find in that somewhat elaborate 

 address no reference whatever to the solutions named, and none 

 whatever to the sequence, I am persuaded they must have 

 escaped his notice. Lewis H. Morgan 



Rochester, New York, April 19 



The Migration of Species 



It has probably been the experience of most who have under- 

 taken a voyage to sea, to have observed land-birds and insects 

 far from the nearest coast, either in course of transit or resting 

 on the vessel. Many travellers have observed these visitants, and 

 their records have proved valuable biological facts bearing on 

 the occasional migrations of species and their consequences as 

 has been pointed out by Mr. Darwin. But it is more than pro- 

 bable that this dispersal of land species over extremely wide 

 areas of sea is far more constant and less occasional than we 

 are at present justified in affirming from the facts as yet collected. 

 Unfortunately, however, we glean very little biological informa- 

 tion from the great mercantile marine service of this country, an 

 assemblage of which we are so justly proud, and it is only by 

 costly Government expeditions that we become acquainted vwth 

 facts that remained and would have remained unnoticed by the 

 immense number of sailors who leave our shores. Nor can we 

 feel surprised at the result when we recollect that biology is 

 scarcely a subject thought necessary to form part of a mariner's 

 education. A good instance is afforded by the results of the 

 voyage of the Beagle. An impalpable powder fell upon the ship 

 off the Cape de Verd Islands. This powder^must have fallen 

 upon man^ ships before j but Mr, Darwin being on board the 



