316 FOSSIL MEN. 



nations diverged into the descriptive system. In 

 illustration of this, I may state that while the reckon- 

 ing of consanguinity among the Greeks,, Romans, and 

 Celts is the same with our own, that of the Tamil 

 races of India, the Chinese, and the Mongolians of 

 North Asia, is identical with that of the American 

 races. 



Nothing can more distinctly mark a unity of origin 

 and descent than such facts as these j but their sig- 

 nificance is far more profound than at first appears. 

 Morgan holds, as do also Lubbock and McLennan in 

 treating of this subject, that the classificatory mode 

 points back to a time when there was no institution 

 of marriage or family relationship. In this, however, 

 they go beyond the limits of fair deduction. The 

 reckoning of consanguinity in any form presupposes 

 the family relation, without which man would be in 

 this matter on a level with the lower animals, and it 

 can give no information as to any previous state in 

 which no family relation existed. Further, the help- 

 less condition and slow growth of the human infant, 

 physiologically imply that man is eminently a pairing 

 animal ; and thus even animal analogies preclude the 

 supposition that there ever was a time when marriage 

 did not exist. Where promiscuous intercourse, poly- 

 gamy, or polyandry occur, we have evidence of vicious 

 social inventions unsuited to the healthy continuance 

 of the race. 



It is clear, however, that the classificatory system 

 points back to a time when there were no prohibited 



