536 ' PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION F., 
This diagram is drawn out according to the now well-. 
known Kanulari rule of marriages and descents, which was 
first indicated by Mr. Lance and the Rev. — Redy, subse- 
quently elucidated by Dr. Fisin and myself in “ Kanulari 
and Kurnai,” and further explained when I had ascertained 
as a fact the existence of the two classes Kupathin and Dilbi 
in my communication to the Anthropological Institute. 
But up to the present time I have not been able to obtain 
a tabulated series of the marriages and descents in three 
levels of a generation of actual Kanularoi people. Therefore 
it remains, as shown by the above diagram, that although 
the marriage of Murri, the brother of Matha (3), to Bortha 
(6), and of her brother Kumbo to Matha (3)—and the 
respective marriage of their children Kubbi (7) and his 
sister Kubbitha with Ipatha (8) and her brother Ipai— 
would be theoretically and under certain circumstances legal, 
the actual facts have not been ascertained. 
All that I have been so far able to learn as bearing on this 
question is that, according to correspondents, “ marriage 
between cousins is absolutely forbidden.” 
Here we are at once met by a difficulty through the 
unfortunate use of our term cousin, which confounds two 
relationships which under the Australian class relationships 
are absolutely distinct. We include as cousins the children 
of two brothers. of two sisters, or of a brother on one side 
and a sister on the other. With the Australian aborigine, 
e.g., the Kanulari, the first and second-named children are 
all brothers and sisters, and as such marriage would be 
absolutely forbidden between them. But restricting the 
term ‘“ cousin” to these where the Dieri term “kami” 
applies, we may then be justified in holding that in Diagram 
III. Murri and Matha (3), and Kumbo and Bortha (6), are 
such ‘‘ cousins,” and, to use the Dieri term, are ‘‘ kami.” If 
so, then their children are no doubt marriageable, and 
Kubbi (7) and Ipatha (8) are so to say in the ‘Noa”’ 
relation. 
If such prove to be the case then the Dieri rule and that 
of the Kanulari are on all fours with each other, with this 
difference, in the former the prohibition has been created 
by an express term of relation, while in the latter it is 
brought about by the subdivision of the classes and the cross. 
marriage and inheritance of the sub-class name in them. 
In this case the Dieri must be regarded as the more 
primitive form, just as that of the Ugarabana must be held 
to have preceded it. Systems such as that of the Kanulari 
extend from Maitland in N.S.W. to at least Hughenden in 
