As if to accentuate the problems raised by the change of ‘class’ names in each generation, Mr. Matthews has discovered that when a man may marry a woman of his own ‘phratry,’ but out of a set of totems not his own, the totems of his children by her alter as the class names do. ‘The children take the totem name,’ not of their mother, but of their maternal grandmother. ‘One totem is the mother of another totem.’[15] This is an unusual phenomenon, and looks like the effort of a desperate ingenuity. The class system exists among the Arunta, with male descent. One moiety of the southern part of the tribe consists of Panunga and Bulthara, linked classes, calling themselves Nakrakia; the other moiety is of Purula and Kumara, calling themselves Mulganuka. A Bulthara man of the first moiety can only marry a Kumara woman, of the second moiety: a Purula man marries a Panunga woman only. The children of a Bulthara man’s union with a Kumara woman take neither the Bulthara nor Kumara name, but are called Panunga, while the children of a Purula man and a Panunga woman are Kumara: of a Panunga man and a Purula woman, Bulthara; of a Kumara man and a Bulthara woman, Purula. That is to say, the Arunta reckoning in the male line, a man’s children do not take _his_ ‘class’ name but the name of the ‘class’ linked to his, and forming, with his, one division of the tribe. Further each of these four divisions consists of two moieties, and a Panunga man, though he can marry a Purula woman, must choose her out of the proper moiety of the Purula division. These moieties of each division, among the Northern Arunta, have names; Uknaria, Appungerta, Umbitchana, Ungalla, and the children of each marriage fall under these names. This restricts a man to only an eighth of the women of his generation, but, on the other hand, among the Arunta, the totem prohibition no longer exists: the totems are not restricted to one or another class, but skip among them, as we have shown in the section on the Arunta. The eight class system, perhaps the four class system, may be regarded as later and conscious modifications of the old phratry and totem rules, which, on my hypothesis, had no conscious moral origin. [Footnote 1: _Die Verwandtschafts-Organisationen der Australneger_. Diek, Stuttgart, 1894.] [Footnote 2: This can hardly be, as the most backward tribes have phratries and totems, but no ‘classes.’] [Footnote 3: Eyre, _Journals_, ii. 293-295. Cunow, p. 33, note 2. Bulmer, in Brough Smyth, i. 235. Roth, _Ethnological Studies_, pp. 69, 70, Brisbane, 1897.] [Footnote 4: Brough Smyth, i. 91.] [Footnote 5: Pp. 122-124, and note 1, an argument against Westermarck.] [Footnote 6: Pp. 127-128.] [Footnote 7: Gason, _The Dicyrie Tribe_ (1894), p. 13. _Kam. and Kur._ p. 25. Cunow, pp. 109-110, 130-132.] [Footnote 8: Cf. Cunow, p. 82. So, too, the Euahlayi.] [Footnote 9: Cunow, p. 130.] [Footnote 10: Pp. 133-134.]