ON THE ORGANISATION OF AUSTRALIAN TRIBES. ee 
It must be now evident that, keeping clearly in sight the distinctive features of 
the group relationships, our words uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, cousin, son-in-law, 
daughter-in-law, &c., cannot have any ‘substantive collective’’ equivalents in the 
languages of the Australian tribes, as has been alleged by the late Mr. K. M. Curr in 
his voluminous work on ‘‘ The Australian Race.” 
His argument in proof of this allegation is worthless when examined. He says 
that there are such terms ‘‘ because he finds them given in vocabularies, and he finds 
them in the lists filled in by his correspondents.” This assumes the correctness of 
the vocabularies and of the lists, which is, indeed, part of the question at issue. An 
examination of the tables given in the work quoted at p. 141, Vol. I, will show at first 
view that the compilers were either ignorant of the true principles of the group 
relationships or of the terms themselves, or desired to come as near to the English 
collective terms given by Mr. Curr in his circulars as they could manage. One 
compiler of the table (Mr. Taplin) takes the trouble to distinguish between the 
paternal and maternal uncles. Mr. Gason, who is also quoted, and with whom I have 
communicated on the subject, gives me a list of the relationship terms in question, 
which is conclusive. This list I annex to this section for reference. 
It is, therefore, evident that in the matter of the ‘‘substantive collective” 
equivalents of our terms uncle, aunt, &c., the late Mr. Curr did not study the 
subject with that analytical care which was necessary in order to place himself 
in a position to speak with certainty. 
_ I bear willing testimony to the value of the information which he has recorded 
in his contribution to the science of anthropology, and I am very sensible of the vast 
amount of labour which is implied by his work, but I am compelled to point out that 
he has, in parts of his work to which I have alluded in this memoir, fallen into 
errors ; and in regard to the terms “‘ uncle, aunt, &c.,” that he has done an injustice 
to Mr. Fison. It was my intention to have entered at length into the question, and 
I communicated my intention long ago to the late Mr. Curr during correspondence 
after the publication of his work. Now, however, that his lamented decease prevents 
any reply on his part, I shall content myself with merely correcting his error, 
and of adding that his charge against Mr. Fison, of what amounted to literary 
dishonesty, in “‘ keeping to himself” terms which would be adverse to his argument, 
is now seen to have been founded upon a mistake as to the true meaning of those 
terms which Mr. Curr himself fell into. 
