744 KEPORT— 1902. 



cannot be logically described as totemism, and the majority of the peoples of this 

 area have so long passed out of savagery that we are hardly likely to find here an 

 unequivocal clue to the actual origin of totemism. 



The reverence paid to particular animals or plants by certain groups of people 

 in Fiji may, as Mr. Lorimer Fison says/ 'look like reminiscences' of totemism, 

 but he has 'no direct evidence.' It surely belongs to the same category as the 

 Samoan custom of which Dr. George Brown writes : ^ ' In Samoa every principal 

 family had some animal which they did not eat, and I have always regarded this as 

 meaning, not that they thought the animal divine, or an object of worship, but 

 that it was the " shrine " in which their ancestral god had dwelt, or which was 

 associated with some fact in their past history which had led them to adopt it as 

 their totem.' An opinion which Professor Tylor has independently expressed,^ 

 but he naturally dissents from the incarnate god being termed a ' totem.' 



I agree with Dr. Codrington * in doubting whether the evidence warrants a 

 belief in totemism as an existing in.stitution in the Southern Solomon Islands. I 

 suspect that totemism has been destroyed over a considerable portion of Melanesia 

 by the growth of secret societies as well as by theriomorphic ancestor worship. 

 Herr R. Parkinson,* however, proves true totemism in the Northern Solomon 

 Islands as the Rev. B. Banks had previously done ® for New Britain, Duke of York 

 Island, and New Ireland. 



. The more one looks into the evidence the more difficult is it to find cases of 

 typical totemism ; almost everywhere considerable modification has taken place, 

 often so much so that the communities cannot logically be called totemistic. The 

 magical increase of the totem by the clansmen does not appear to be common, but 

 that may be due to its having been overlooked ; on the other hand, magic may be 

 performed against the totems to prevent them from injuring the crops, as in the 

 case of the 'Reptile people' of the Omaha.' 



Anhnal Brethren. 



Throughout South-eastern Australia and probably elsewhere in that continent 

 there is a peculiar association of a species of animal, usually a bird, with each sex. 

 To take two examples given by Mr. A. W. Howitt,- ' the bird totems of the 

 Kurnai are the Emu, Wren, and the Superb Warbler, which are respectively the 

 " man's brother " and " woman's sister." . . . AVhen we turn to tlie Kulin we find 

 both the Kurnai totems in just the same position. In addition there are also a 

 second male and female totem, namely, the Bat and the small Night-Jar.' Mr. 

 Howitt is careful to point out, ' They are not true totems in the sense that these 

 represent subdivisions of the primary classes : yet they are true totems in so far 

 that they are regarded as being the " brothers " and " sisters " of the human beings 

 who bear their names.' Mr. A. L. P. Cameron ^ also states that these are ' some- 

 thing different from ordinary totems.' Later Mr. Howitt ''' says : 'Among the 

 Wotjobaluk tribe which have a true totemic system these were real totems 

 although of a peculiar kind. They were called yaur, or " flesh," or ngirabiil, or 

 mir, just as were the totems proper. The only difference was that the Bat was 

 the brother of all the men, while any one totem was the brother only of the men 

 who bore it as their totem. . . . It is evident that the institution of the " man's 

 brother " and the " woman's sister " as totems is very widespread throughout 

 Australia. I have traced it over an extent of about a thousand miles and in 

 tribes having marked differences in language and in social organisation. It seems 

 to be very persistent and enduring, for it remained among the Kurnai in full force 



' Ann. Bep. Brit. New Guiwa, 1897-98, p. 136. = lUd., p. 137. 



^ Journ. AntliTOp. Inst., xxviii. p. 1-12. ^ The Melanesians, 1891, p. 32. 



5 Abh. Ber. It. Zool. Anth. Etli. Miis. Dresden, vii. 1899, Nr. 6. 



'^ Journ. Anthrop. Inst., xviii. 1889, p. 281. 



• J. O. Dorsey, Ann. Bep. Bureau Ethnol, 1881-82 (1884), p. 248. 



" Journ. Anthro]). Inst., xv. 1886, p. 41G. 



» Ibid., xiv. 1885, p. 350. '» Ibid., xviii. 1888, pp. 57, 59. 



