Aug. 19, 1875 



NATURE 



311 



Why could not the record before us be published in 

 England as well as in America? This seems a very 

 feasible plan, and would doubtless add to the usefulness 

 of the work, inasmuch as English coUaborateurs might 

 be added. 



Very different from the American annual is the English 

 year-book, yet it is, we believe, the only "year-book of 

 science " of which we can boast. Outside it resembles a 

 shilling railway novel ; inside it is a pleasant gossipping 

 account of odds and ends of science picked up at the 

 Royal Institution. An altogether disproportionate amount 

 of space is devoted to extracts from the papers and 

 addresses of Prof. Tyndall, and the woodcuts on the 

 title-page are taken from the same source. We are 

 glad, however, that the " Year-book of Facts " still 

 remains, notwithstanding the death of its former inde- 

 fatigable compiler. Mr. Vincent tells us he undertook at 

 short notice to continue the work of the late Mr. Timbs. 

 To compile a year-book under such circumstances can 

 be no light duty, and hence we must be lenient to 

 its shortcomings. So far as the book goes, Mr. Vincent 

 has done his work well, and gives a bill of fare that no 

 doubt will be relished by the dilettante scientific public. 

 But it should be clearly understood that the volume is 

 merely a scrap-book of popular science, and not in any 

 sense an annual register, such as we hope may soon be 

 issued. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 



[ The Editor does not hold himself resfonsille for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to return, 

 or to correspond ivith the "writers of, rejected manuscripts. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications. "[ 



Systems of Consanguinity 



In Sir John Lubbock's vindication of his original charge that 

 I seem to have two theories of the facts in my work on Consan- 

 guinity (Nature, vol. xii. p. 124), he fails to show that the 

 classificatory system was interpreted by me as "arbitrary, ani- 

 ficial, and intentional." This is one of ihe theories, and in fact 

 the principal one, which he ascribes to me, and which I repu- 

 diate. The other theory, that which I did advocate, is presented 

 both in his address before the Anthropological Institute and in 

 this vindication (stated partially and imperfectly), as something 

 that I "admit." " Mr. Morgan admits that systems of relation- 

 ship have undergone a gradual development, following that of 

 the social system." (Address, p. 4, Nature, vol. xii. p. 125.) 



It would require too free a use of your columns to explain at 

 length how, by quotations severed from their connectionF, and 

 ])y a use of their phraseology not in accordance with my design, 

 a defence of an unwarranted statement has been put together. 



I beg leave to re-state the propositions in my work on Consan. 

 guinity, which contain the substance of the views I have advo- 

 cated, and to which I stand committed ; and to request those 

 who may be interested in the subject to read the last chapter in 

 the light of these statements. 



In that chapter, entitled "General Results," the facts are dis- 

 cussed under seven propositions, in substance the following : — 



Proposition I. That the systems of consanguinity given in the 

 tables may be resolved into two, which are radically distinct, 

 one of which is called descriptive and tlie other classificatory. 

 The first is that of the Aryan, Semitic and Uralian families, and 

 the second that of the Malayan, Turanian, and Ganowanian 

 families. 



Proposition II. That these systems are to be ranked as 

 domestic institutions. 



Proposition III. (in full). " Can the origin of the descriptive 

 system be accounted for and explained, from the nature of 

 descents and upon the principle of natural suggestion, on the 

 assumption of the antecedent existence of marriage between 

 single pairs?" (Con. p. 472.) 



The affirmative of this proposition is maintained. "It is the 

 institution of marriage between single pairs which teaches the 

 descriptive system ; whilst this form of marriage has been taught 

 by nature through the slow growth of the experience of the ages." 

 (Con. p. 469.) 



Propoiition IV. (in full). " Can the origin of the classificatory 



system be accounted for and explained, from the nature of 

 descents, upon the assumption of the existence of a series of 

 customs and institutions antecedent to a state of marriage be- 

 tween single pairs, of which the Hawaiian custom is one?" 

 (lb. p. 474.) 



The affirmative of this proposition is likewise maintained. 

 Under it the solution of the origin of the Malayan system is 

 given, and also of the Turanian, together with the customs and 

 institutions, fifteen in number, arranged in a sequence, which 

 stand connected with the birth and growth of these systems. 

 Assuming, for example, the intermarriage of brothers and sisters 

 in a group, every relationship in the Malayan system is found to 

 be that which would actually exist ; wherefore, the system itself 

 proves the antecedent existence of this form of marriage. The 

 same line of argument and of inference is then applied to the 

 Turanian system. In Propositions III. and IV. I speak of both 

 forms as natural in contradistinction to artificial, although they 

 are radically different. They are natural in the sense that they 

 are in accordance with descents as they actually existed when 

 each system respectively was formed. This is the main proposi- 

 tion in that chapter, occupying in its discussion nineteen of its 

 forty -three pages. It presents the theory of the author ; it is the 

 only place where the origin of the classificatory system is dis- 

 cussed. 



Proposition V. This proposition maintains the unity of origin 

 of such tribes of the American aborigines as are found to possess 

 an identical system of consanguinity. 



Proposition VI. (in full). " Where two or more families, con- 

 stituted independently on the basis of such a system of relation- 

 ship, are found in disconnected areas or upon different continents, 

 can their genealogical connection be legitimately inferred from 

 their joint possession of the same system ? " (lb. p. 498.) 



Afier showing that the people of South India who speak the 

 Tamil, Telugu, and Canarese dialects have a system of consan- 

 guinity identical with that of the Seneca-Iroquois of New York, 

 in upwards of 200 relationships, the question is raised, " How 

 shall this identity be explained ? " It was my discussion of this 

 question that confounded my distinguished adversary, which he 

 misunderstood at first, and is not sure that he "quite compre- 

 hends even now." How his difficulty could have arisen I confess 

 puzzles me. Under Proposition III. the origin of the descriptive 

 system had been discussed, and under Proposition IV. that of 

 the classificatory ; but under this (VI. ) the question was whether 

 any evidence of the Asiatic origin of the Ganowanian family 

 could be found in this identity of systems. The four hypotheses 

 quoted by him (vol. xii. p. 124) are produced and discussed here. 

 " Spontaneous growth " was referred to and of course rejected as 

 an adequate explanation of this identity of systems. 



Proposition VII. relates to inferences that may be drawn 

 from partial identity of systems. 



These several propositions show very plainly, I submit, that 

 these systems are not explained in that volume as "arbitrary, 

 artificial, and intentional," and equally plainly that they aie 

 explained as growths or results of certain customs and institu- 

 tions. 



Turning now to Sir John Lubbock's vindication, his first 

 principal quotation is taken from the discussion of my first pro- 

 position, where " natural and spontaneous " is used in opposition 

 to resulting growths from customs and institutions, the cause 

 being unknown in the first case, and known in the second. His 

 second quotation is from the discussion of my sixth proposition, 

 where " spontaneous growth" is used, and in the same sense. 



The discussion of the mass of materials accumulated in that 

 volume was confined to forty-three out of five hundred and 

 eighty-three pages. It was a new subject, in which it was 

 necessary to invent, to some extent, a new terminology. I am 

 aware of its great defects, but I deny that two theories of the 

 facts are to be found therein, or that I have explained the classi- 

 ficatory system as "arbitrary, artificial, and intentional," which 

 is the point from which this discussion started. 



Rochester, New York, July 20 Lewis H. Morgan 



Weather on the Atlantic 

 I HAVE reluctantly come to the conclusion that attempts to 

 forecast the weather on the North Atlantic frequently result in 

 disappointment. A recent passage from New York to this 

 country has enabled me to gather some remarkable data on this 

 subject, so remarkable, indeed, that any one crossing for the first 

 time might reasonably question the action of the barometer. If 

 I had had only ore on board, I should certainly have doubted its 



