102 R. H. MATHEWS. 
food among the relatives and friends of those who procure 
the supply. Let us say a hunter has killed a padamellin. 
Some of his relatives get their share from the fore part of 
the animal, and others from the hind part. There is a 
further regulation as to which side of the animal shall be 
given. Some are alloted their portion from the right side 
of the padamellin, others from the left side. For example, 
a certain relation may be given the right hind leg, another 
the left; the right and left fore legs would be similarly 
distributed to others. One man would get the loin, another 
the backbone, another the tail, another the head. The 
brisket, ribs and internal parts respectively would go to 
othen relatives. The portion which each person would 
obtain would depend upon his relationship to the hunter. 
The worst parts would be kept by the hunter for his own 
use. HKmus, opossums, iguanas, fish and other animals are 
divided on the same principle, with necessary variations 
according to their shape and size. A somewhat similar 
distribution is made of yams, grass seeds, berries and other 
foods. 
We have said that a man gets his share of food, accord- 
ing to his relationship to the person who captures it; but 
this does not restrict him to one special part of every 
animal, because his relationship to another hunter will 
entitle him to a different portion of such hunter’s game. 
Say that a man, A, is allotted the left hind leg of an 
opossum by his brother’s son. A may have a brother-in- 
law in the camp who will perhaps give him the loin of a 
kangaroo—the portion of the carcase given by a brother-in- 
law differing from that given by a brother’s son, and so on. 
Although a man distributes all the best portions of his 
own catch of game and eats only a little of the worst parts, 
yet he shares in the distribution of the game of his relatives 
and thereby gets some good pieces. Moreover, it looks at 
