NOTES ON THE ARBANDA TRIBE. 161 



descent was through the father. 1 In 1898 I contradicted 

 that statement and showed that- descent is maternal. 2 Dr. 

 Howitt in his late work, " Native Tribes of South-east 

 Australia," does not allude to my contradiction, from which 

 it may be inferred that he maintains his statement of 1883. 

 Whether he does so or not, it becomes necessary for me to 

 repeat that I am quite certain that descent in the Mycoolon 

 tribe is indisputably maternal. 



I wish to make a few further remarks on Table VI of my 

 monograph of August last, which represents Spencer and 

 Gillen's table of the Ohingalee intermarriages. These co- 

 authors profess to have discovered that the first four men 

 in the "Husband" column of Table VI are called by the 

 collective name of Willitji, and that the remaining four 

 men in that column are known as Liaritji, thus constituting 

 two independent moieties, in which the fathers are said to 

 pass on their moiety and section names to their sons from 

 generation to generation. Tiiis succession holds good only 

 while the four men marry No. I or No. II wives, but breaks 

 down altogether when we examine the progeny of No. Ill 

 or No. IV wives. For living examples of these four sorts 

 of wives, see Table IV, p. 72 of this Volume. 



For example, let us suppose that each of the said "Hus- 

 bands" of the so-called Willitji moiety marries a No. Ill 

 wife. Then Chimitcha marries a Chuna woman and his son 

 is Chemara; Chuna espouses Chimitcha and his son is 

 Cliampina; Tungaree weds Taralee and his son is Chula; 

 and Taralee marries a Tungaree wife and his son is Chun- 

 galee. These four sons belong to the moiety which 

 Spencer and Gillen call Liaritji. If the four "Husbands" 

 of our example had married No. IV wives, the result would 

 have been the same. 



1 Journ. Anthrop. Inst., London, xiii., p. 346. 



2 This Journal, xxxn., pp. 82, 83. 



K— Nov. 6, 1907. 



