“In modern times the courts generally recognize only two kinds of sons, namely aurasa and dattaka, the other kinds of sons being held to be obsolete.” In fact, the claim that most of the various kinds of sons recognized by the ancient ṛṣis had become obsolete is not restricted to “modern times.” It goes back far into the past. According to a verse attributed to Bṛhaspati, “presentday” people were no longer able to distinguish between the different kinds of sons introduced by the Seers:

Yet the Dharmaśāstras —including Bṛhaspati's—, the commentators, and the modern treatises on Hindu law prior to 1955/56 went on to list and, in many cases, define and discuss 12 different kinds of sons.

Even though the lists of 12 kinds of sons differ in detail (for comparative lists, see Kane 1930–1962: 3.645; Mayne 1950: 107), there are some features which most of them share:

1. The different kinds of sons are always listed in descending order of importance. Says Nārada:

2. pūrvaḥ pūrvaḥ smṛtaḥ śreṣṭho jaghanyo yo ya uttaraḥ. (13.47cd/45cd)

3. And so does Viṣṇu:

4. eteṣāṃ pūrvaḥ pūrvaḥ śreyān. (15.28)

5. Whereas all other sons appear at different places in the several lists, the aurasa son invariably occupies the first place. Some texts underscore this position explicitly. Vasiṣṭha's definition (17.13; see below) does not include the term aurasa, but is followed by prathamaḥ. Viṣṇu's definition (15.2; see below) ends: aurasaḥ prathamaḥ.