consanguinity, or relation by blood." Johnson's definition is the same. There is no such relation as affinity of or through blood. It is a mere invention of Omicron's imagination. By this contrivance he strikes four relations from the affinity class; "father's wife, paternal uncle's wife, brother's wife, son's wife," (p. 28,) and by speaking of the "blood-kin" of a wife; he presents "the rule of prohibition on the ground of blood, under three aspects," (p. 28.) But let Omicron return to the use of proper terms, and lay aside his imaginary relation, and what will follow? He will then present the rule of prohibition on two grounds, that of blood and that of affinity; and will, of course, exhibit it under two aspects. His rule will read thus: "I may not cohabit,
"1. With my own blood-kin, in the six nearest degrees.
"2. With my affinity relations, in the eight nearest degrees."
If Omicron feels particularly attached to his rule of "three aspects of blood," we think we shall not object to it, provided he will strike out of the preceding paragraph his paren-
