should be now in the position of satisfying others, instead of, perhaps, only satisfying myself. Unfortunately, it is probably too late, although there are some outlying tribes who, I think, may still be available for my investigations.
Mr. Thomas briefly summarises what he conceives to be my points, with his own comments.
These I shall now consider:
(1) It is well that the term "group-marriage" should be definitely settled. It seems to be a bogey both to Mr. Lang and Mr. Thomas, and to be the ground for the question which Mr. Lang asks at page 53 of his Secret of the Totem: "Will anyone say, originally all Noa people were actual husbands and wives to each other?" I think that Mr. Thomas has asked very much the same question now. I have used the term as a synonym for pirrauru, but I shall probably in future use it to define the time and the conditions before the noa system was established.
(2) I think I have shown that the terms arising out of pirrauru marriage are the same as the group terms which are still retained in different languages, by tribes which now have only individual marriage.
(3) I have dealt with Mr. Thomas's "philological argument" at page 289, and also as to the "group-mother."
(4) I still say that if pirrauru marriage were a "sport" upon individual marriage, there should be, at least, survivals of relationship-terms denoting it. The only instance of such a term in the Dieri tribe is tippa-malku, and this, according to my view, is a restriction upon the pirrauru right.
I think I have discussed all the important points which Mr. Thomas makes. There are others which challenge attention, but to have dealt with all would require more space than I could ask. Nor is it, I think, necessary, for if I am correct, as I think I am, in my criticism of the larger ones, the lesser will necessarily fall to the ground.
