168 R. H. MATHEWS. 
The Ippai whom we have taken as an example could also marry 
one of these Ippathas, who would likewise be the daughter of his 
“mother’s brother ”—a tribal brother being understood in both 
cases. So that whether Ippai marry a Kubbitha or an Ippatha 
she is a woman who is the daughter of his “ mother’s brother.” 
Either of these women would be the cousin of Ippai, bearing in 
mind the wide difference between our meaning of this relationship 
and that of the aboriginal. 
In examining the: marriage laws, as stated in earlier pages, it 
is seen that the mother of a man’s wife, and also his daughters, 
belong to the same section, and therefore his marriage with that 
section is prohibited. Neither can he marry into the section to 
which his mother belongs, although a woman might be found, in 
either case, who is in no way connected with him. Therefore the 
Ippai of our example cannot marry a Matha, for she is his possible 
daughter, and also because she is the mother, collaterally, of his 
wife Kubbitha. Neither can he marry a Butha, because she is 
his tribal mother, and the mother of his wife Ippatha, and is, 
moreover, his potential daughter by the last mentioned wife. 
(See Table A.) 
The Kamilaroi type of totemic divisions extends over a large 
proportion of New South Wales, but as we should expect among 
tribes at a distance who speak other languages, the names of the 
divisions are different in different tracts of territory. I will 
conclude this part of the paper with a few brief particulars of the 
sectional names of three tribes in the north-eastern portion of the 
colony which have not hitherto been recorded. 
The Anaywan tribe, occupying the New England district’ have 
a totemic system which is the same in principle as the Kamilaroi, 
but the names of the sections are different, as will be seen by the 
following table :— 
1 For an account of the initiation ceremonies of these people, see MY 
paper on the ‘‘ ae of the New England Tribes.”—Proc. 
Victoria, rx., N.S., 136. 
