All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival theory, and we may add to them the fact that the tippa-malku husband, so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother’s brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the introduction of individual marriage.  When we consider that the jus primae noctis is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the position of the tippa-malku husband and the method in which he obtains his wife are exceedingly instructive.

Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what other way the facts can be explained.  The unfortunate lack of detail to which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from the facts already at our disposal.  We have seen that in the Wakelbura tribe, so far from the condition being one of “group marriage,” it is one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry.  Now it is by no means easy to see how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which, according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity.  On the other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other regions, the result of a scarcity of women[178], or, what is the same thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28 or 30.

With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is required to purchase his pirrauru rights, that the young man without pirrauru wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one of his pirrauru spouses, and that the tippa-malku marriage always precedes the pirrauru relation in the female.  It may indeed be urged against the view that the purchase of a temporary pirrauru is in fact not a case of pirrauru at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of hospitality among savage nations.  This is no doubt the case and we might merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of sexual rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia.  Looked at from another point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive.  So far as Dr Howitt’s statements go, the husband of the pirrauru who is thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter.  The pirrauru husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she were a slave.  On the theory of group marriage the tippa-malku husband has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the pirrauru husband.  In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the transaction.  It is true that in the case we are considering the