NOTES ON THE ARRANDA TRIBE. 153 



to enable me to clear up his statement that "whether 

 Paltara has a Kamara or a Mbit j ana for his wife, the children 

 are Pananka." 1 I was however, able to state that descent 

 was counted through the mothers, instead of the fathers as 

 reported by Mr. Schulze. 



At that time I w^as confronted with the following 

 problems : (a) That a certain Paltara man with a Kamara 

 wife had a family of the Knuraia section, like Peter and 

 Rebecca, for example, in Table II of my paper of August, 

 (b) That another Paltara man in the same locality, with a 

 Mbit j ana wife, had children which also belonged to the 

 Knuraia section, such as Thomas and Katarina in Table A 

 of this brochure, (c) Then again Mr. Schulze said that a 

 Paltara man's children should be Pananka, whether he had 

 a Kamara or a Mbitjana wife. 



I had sufficient confidence in my informants to feel 

 assured that every one of these conflicting examples was 

 perfectly true. I then asked my correspondents to send 

 me comprehensive lists of married persons with whom they 

 were well acquainted, going back one generation and for- 

 ward one generation. The cases (a) and (6) have already 

 been answered, leaving only (c) to be explained. 



The Paltara man of Mr. Schnlze's example probably or 

 certainly belonged to the faction of the tribe which had 

 only the four sections exhibited in Table A. By all the 

 traditions of his forefathers his wife should be a Kamara, 

 and if he contracted marriage with a Mbitjana she would 

 be treated as the equivalent or complement of Kamara and 

 her offspring would be classified as Pananka, the same as 

 Kamara's offspring. 



It appears, then, that there are three methods of reckoning 

 the descent of the offspring in the mixed community of the 



1 Trans. Eoy. Soc. S. Australia, xiv., p. 224-. 



