ON THE ORGANISATION OF AUSTRALIAN TRIBES. 101 
bears its name, and it is his individual totem. Thus, there is a group of totems 
attached to each of the primary classes, and among the Wakelbura some of these 
totems are common to both the sub-classes into which their primary divides* 
A totem of one class can only marry with a certain totem in the other class, and 
the children are of the same totem as their mothers. Here we find again proof, which 
in this case is clear and direct, that descent is counted in the female line. 
We may carry with us these preliminary conclusions, namely, that in tribes such 
as the Wakelbura, each class, sub-class, or totem is a group of individuals, all of 
whom are related to each other by bonds which run through the female line of 
descent. 
IT have now shown the manner in which the community divides into certain 
hereditary groups, and the fundamental laws which govern marriage and descent in 
them. For further details as to variations of type which occur, I may refer the 
reader to my previous memoirs on this subject.+ 
(6) The Local Organisation.—l have now shown how the Wakelbura community 
is divided socially into two great inter-marrying classes with sub-divisions. 
But beside and independently of this social organisation there is what may be 
termed a local organisation of the tribe. The Wakelbura tribe as a whole occupies a 
certain defined tract of country, which forms its hunting and food grounds, and which 
it claims exclusively, not admitting the right of any other tribe or any other 
individuals to use it unless when they happened to be within its boundaries as the 
visitors of the Wakelbura. The boundaries of this tribal country cointide with the 
boundaries of the social organisation of the classes of the Wakelbura community, 
although the names of the classes, sub-classes, and totems extend beyond the tribal 
boundaries, and include in a wider social bond other adjoining tribes. 
The tribal country is divided into lesser areas, each of which is claimed by a 
corresponding local division of the tribe, and these are again subdivided until we get 
down at last to the local unit, namely, that small tract which is occupied and 
claimed by the smallest tribal sub-division, which may be considered in the light of 
an undivided family, that is to say, of those who are very nearly related to each 
other, and who have a common descent from a known ancestor, together with their 
wives who have been brought from other localities. | 
* Mr. Muirhead informs me that at present he is unable to find out why it is that some totems are peculiar to one of 
the sub-classes, whilst others are common to both sub-classes. 
i Notes on the Australian Class Systems, Journal Anthropological Institute, May, 1883. Further notes on the 
Australian Class Systems, Journal Anthropological Institute, 1888. 
__ } I may refer the reader for a good instance of how a tribe is divided into local groaps to the Kurnai tribe, as to 
which, see ‘‘ Kamilaroi and Kurnai,” Fison and Howitt, Robertson, Melbourne, 1883, p. 224, et infra. 
