PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F. 327 
here is a group of kindred, who have the same ancestors, 
from whom they descend in the “generatio matris.” On this 
view the group indicated by the law of the Reippus appears to 
be the first stage from a time when maternal descent prevailed 
to that time when, as now, paternal descent was the only one 
recognised. Between these two periods there would be a time 
when a child had, to use the Anglo-Saxon term, two maegs, 
one being the paternal, and the other the maternal. 
The law of Reippus suggests such a case, for the widow’s maeg 
evidently followed that line. 
It seems a far cry from the Teutonic tribes to the native 
tribes of Australia; nor do I suggest any ethnical connection 
between them, but { do say that many customs of savagery at 
the present time are evidently the same in character as those 
of peoples, now civilised, who practised them within the know- 
ledge of classical writers. To explain my meaning, I may refer 
to the comparison which was drawn by Dr. Lorimer Fison and 
myself between the social structure. of the Attic and the Aus- 
tralian tribes, not only as to general organisation, but also 
as to general usage (p). We endeavoured to show that Athenian 
society was built upon a foundation, whose outlines, and even 
whose inner uividing lines coincide substantially with those 
of savage society, and those lines may be distinctly traced. 
This comparison has stood the test of time and of criticism. 
If I am right in my conjecture that the law of the Reippus is 
a- survival from the time when descent was counted in the 
female line, then there are certain similiarities of custom in Aus- 
tralian tribes which may serve as sidelights on the Frankish 
custom. 
In order to show how maternal descent acts on marriage 
among the Australian savages, I quote the practice of the Dieri 
tribe of the Barcoo Delta, because not only have they maternal 
descent, and the classificatory system of relationships con- 
nected therewith, but also marriage preceded by betrothal. 
The Dieri community is divided into two great intermarrying 
groups, which are again subdivided. W hen a child is born it 
is thereby a member of a certain group, which is “noa” to 
another gioup. Tlus is explained by the following statements. 
Assuming the child to be a girl she stands in the noa relation 
to the males of a certain other group, whose sisters are noa 
to the males of her group. Thus there is on either side 
au group of women, who are own or tribal sisters, being noa 
to a group of men who are own or tribal brothers. By tribal 
brothers or sisters [ mean, for instance, those whom we should 
eall “ first See being the children of two or more brothers, 
(p) ‘* The Deme and the Horde.” Journal Anthrop. Inst., November, 1884. 
