be allotted as a pirrauru, whether she be in the relation of tippa-malku or not.
It is therefore incorrect where I say, as Mr. Thomas points out, "that a woman must enter the tippa-malku relation before she can receive a pirraurur."
In the preparation of my work, which extended over several years, a number of draughts were made, each one being altered as I obtained further information. There were four or five of these, and in the preparation of the latest for the press, I added the second of the above-quoted passages, as the final result of enquiries made to clear up doubts which I had formed as to the correctness of the earlier information. I intended to bring the statements about tippa-malku into accord with the new facts, but I found on seeing the work in print that this had not been done, unfortunately leaving the very misleading statement which Mr. Thomas has quoted.
In replying to Mr. Lang, I had the later paragraph in mind, and also another matter, which I now avail myself of this opportunity to place in a more satisfactory position.
I have always experienced a great difficulty, owing to the aboriginal conception of relationship being on a totally different plane to ours, in giving such an explanation of the Dieri marriages as would be a correct statement of fact and at the same time be easily mastered by my readers.
Many years ago, when I wrote an account of the Dieri and Kindred Tribes, I used the term noa as the equivalent of that which I now term pirrauru, and this was correct because, taking Diagram i. for my illustration, the man 1 and the woman 6 are still noa while being also pirrauru by the kandri ceremony. At the same time the man i is also the noa of the woman 5, and obtained her as his wife by tippa-malku.
I therefore distinguished between the position of the woman 5 by speaking of her as the " specialised noa."
