Owing to the external similarity of the tribal organizations, it has generally been thought that the totem groups of the Australians are merely clans or subclans, such as are, doubtless, the social groups of the American Indians, designated by similar totem names. This interpretation, however, has unquestionably led to serious confusion, particularly in the description of the tribal organization of the Australians. A study of the detailed and very valuable contributions of Howitt and of other early investigators of the sociological conditions of Australia, inevitably leaves the impression that, particularly as regards the interpretation of the various group names, the scholars were labouring under misconceptions which caused the relations to appear more complex than they really are. Such misconceptions were all the more possible because the investigators in question were entirely ignorant of the languages of the natives, and were therefore practically dependent upon the statements of their interpreters. Under these circumstances we may doubtless be allowed a certain degree of scepticism as to the acceptance of these reports, especially when they also involve an interpretation of phenomena; and we may be permitted an attempt to discover whether a different conception of the significance of the various group names may not give us a clearer picture of the phenomena, and one that is also more adequate when the general condition of the inhabitants is taken into account. The conditions prevalent among the American Indians are in general much easier to understand than are those of the Australians, particularly where the old tribal organization has been preserved with relative purity, as among the Iroquois. In this case, however, the totem names have obviously become pure clan designations without any cult significance. Now this has not occurred among the Australians; for them, the totem animal has rather the status of a cult object common to the members of a group. The fact that the Australians have separate names for the clans, as was remarked above, whereas the American Indians have come to designate clans by totem names, provides all the more justification for attributing essentially different meanings to the two groups that bear totem names. In attempting to reach a more satisfactory interpretation of totemic tribal organization, therefore, we shall consider those totem groups which are obviously in a relatively early stage of development--namely, the Australian groups--simply as _cult associations_ which have found a place within the tribal divisions or clans, but whose original significance is of an absolutely different nature. In the above schema, therefore, A, B, C, D, etc., represent tribal divisions or clans, _m, n, o, p,_ etc., cult groups. The latter are lacking in the part of the diagram which refers to the American Indians, since these have no cult associations that are independent