I used the term group-marriage, as I have before done as a synonym for pirrauru, in contrast to the individual marriage of other tribes.
I do not understand what Mr. Thomas means by the expressions: "pirrauru is (1) not a necessary relation in any single case; (2) is entered upon by a definite ceremony; (3) is entered upon by individuals no more and no less than the tippa-malku relation; and (4) is for the woman, so far as we know, subsequent to tippa-malku."
My reply to this is: (1) It is a necessary relation, because after the kandri ceremony those who are made pirrauru thereby remain so permanently, and necessarily so when the allocation is made by the elders; (3) The man 1 in Diagram 1 and the woman 5 were made tippa-malku, but neither 1 nor 5 could be again "betrothed." But although a man was made pirrauru with a woman, this did not prevent either of them being re-allotted whenever pairs of pirrauru were again allocated either by the consent of parties, or by the elders. This shows I think that Mr. Thomas has not altogether mastered the evidence as to tippa-malku and pirrauru; (4) I have already dealt with the unfortunate oversight, which I much regret, as it has been the cause of misunderstanding by Mr. Thomas, and possibly by others.
Mr. Thomas quotes my remarks at page 298, that the fraternal terms of the Kurnai are "far wider than those of the Dieri and appear to point to a time prior to the making of those restrictions which necessitated the use of (different) terms to distinguish between a man's own children and those of his sister."
Mr. Thomas then asks why "Dr. Howitt refuses to draw the appropriate conclusion from the fraternal terms"?
My answer is that I always hesitate to come to a
