360 The Origin of Totem Names and Beliefs.
Miss Kingsley wrote, are never in plants, but always in wild beasts, and are recognisable only by second-sighted men. The "bush-soul" of a man is often that of his sons : the daughters often inherit the mother's "bush-soul": or children of both sexes may take after the bush-soul of either father or mother. The natives will not injure their bush- soul beasts. Nothing is known as to prohibition of marriage between persons of the same bush-soul. Here we have really something akin to the totem, the bush-souls being hereditary, at least for one generation. But this is among a house-dwelling, agricultural people, far above the state of real savagery : not among a primitive people.
The Zapotecs of Central America, again, choose, by a method of divination, " a tona or second self," an animal for each child at its birth. It is, by the nature of the case, not hereditable. The nagtcal, usually a beast, of each Indian of Guatemala is well known ; and is discovered on the monition of a dream, by each individual. Therefore it cannot be hereditable. The sexes, in Australia, have each a friendly and protecting species of animal ; say a bat for all men, a nightjar for all women : indeed, in Australia, all the elements of nature have their place in the cosmic tribe. To injure the animal of either sex, is to injure one of the sex. There is no secret about the matter.
Mr. Frazer then argues " the explanation which holds good of the one," (say the " sex-totem," or " personal totem), "ought equally to hold good of the other," (the group-totem). " Therefore the reason why a tribe," (I venture to prefer to say " kin," as there are many totem in each "tribe") "revere a particular species of animals or plants .... and call themselves after it, would seem to be a belief that the life of each individual of the tribe is bound up with some one plant or animal of the species, and that his or her death would be the consequence of killing that particular animal, or destroying that par- ticular plant." Mr. Frazer thinks that "this explanation
