MARRIAGE RULES OF AUSTRALIAN TRIBES. 953d 
married to Dieri women who were according to the Dieri 
rule kami to them, but from the Ugarabana standpoint 
nupa. These marriages were only brought about by the men 
making gifts to the mothers of the women, by whom princi- 
pally the betrothal (promising) is made, and who under such 
an arrangement stand in the relation to such men, not of 
“paiara’ but or “ kami-paiara,” or as I may put it, ‘‘ kami- 
mothers-in-law.” 
These two cases relate to tribes having the two-class 
system, which occupy or occupied a very large area in Central 
Australia, and also extended south to Port Lincoln. 
Before illustrating the marriage rule of certain coast tribes 
which also had the two-class system, it is advisable to show 
what the rule is in tribes which have not only the two classes, 
but also their respective subdivision into two, making a 
system which most frequently appears under the guise of 
four classes, the original two classes being in abeyance, or 
even lost. 
The best instance will be that of the Kanuluroi-speaking 
tribe of New South Wales. 
The study of this marriage rule is complicated by the 
peculiar manner in which the marriage and descents in 
the four sub-classes have been, no doubt unintentionally, 
arranged. 
The four-class system is as follows :— 
j Lpai. PA eu Giger 
po. Hele Kubbi. 
The feminine of each name is formed by the addition of 
“tha.” 
As Kupathin marries Dilbitha, where children are Dil- 
bitha, we have here a clear equivalence with the Dieri classes, 
and their diagram would be generally like that of the 
Ugarabana. 
Omitting the two-class names, the marriage and descents 
in the four sub-classes give the following diagram :— 
Kupathin 
Dracram EE, 
(1) Ipai_____ Brother __—— (4) Kubbi. 
ae Se 
(2) sg eae Sister ~~ >(5) Ipatha 
(3) Matha (6) Bortha 
(7) Kubbi (8) Ipatha 
