In 1880, in _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_,[8] Mr. Fison, a learned missionary and anthropologist, gave his account of the organisation of certain Australian tribes. He speaks of (1) The division of a tribe, or community, into two exogamous intermarrying classes.[9] (2) ‘The subdivision’ (mark the phrase) ‘of these classes into four.’ (3) ‘Their subdivision into _gentes_, distinguished by totems, which are generally, though not invariably, the names of animals.’ Now totems we know, and we have cited Mr. Mathews for the other divisions. Take (1) ‘the two exogamous intermarrying classes.’ Examples are Male, Kumite; female, Kumitegor (one ‘class,’ which I call ‘phratry’). Male, Kroki; female, Krokigor (the other ‘class,’ ‘phratry’). Again. Male, _Yungaru_ (_opossum_); female, _Yungaruan_. Male, _Wutaru_ (_kangaroo_); female, _Wutaruan_. What _are_ these two ‘_primary_’ exogamous divisions? And why call them ‘primary’? ‘_PRIMARY_ CLASSES?’ My object, as has been said, is now, contrary to general opinion, to repeat that the great dichotomous ‘division’ of a tribe into two exogamous, intermarrying, ‘classes’ or ‘phratries,’ is not ‘primary’ at all, but is secondary to groups at once totemic and exogamous, and is not, in origin, a bisection, but a combination. If I am right, the consequences will be of some curiosity. First, it will appear that the ‘primary divisions’ are themselves totemic in origin, thus implying the pre-existence of Totemism. Next it will be made to appear probable that the pre-existing totems were already exogamous before the phratries arose, and that exogamy does not date, as the best authorities hold, from the making of the great dichotomous divisions or ‘phratries.’ For no such dichotomous division, I suggest, was ever made. THE ‘PRIMARY DIVISIONS’ ARE THEMSELVES TOTEMIC AND EXOGAMOUS We see that, of the two ‘phratries’ Yungaru and Wutaru, Yungaru is ‘opossum’ (according to Mr. Chatfield) or ‘alligator’ (according to Mr. Bridgman); while Wutaru is ‘kangaroo.’ These two primary ‘phratries,’ therefore, have totemic names, and (in my opinion) were originally two local totem groups, each containing members of various totems derived from alien mothers. The same thing may be true when the meanings of the ‘primary class names’ (‘phratries’) can no longer be discovered. If so, the ‘primary divisions’ are, in origin, mere totem distinctions, involving, I think, the pre-existence of the rule of exogamy, which is also involved in the rules of the ‘primary divisions.’ Mr. Fison writes (what is obvious) ‘in some places the primary divisions are distinguished by totem names at the present day.’[10]