exogamy in a region where there were many totem groups, and by virtue of female descent, contained within it persons who were of various totem kindreds. Dr. Durkheim, on the contrary, seems to think of the existence of but two primal exogamous clans in a given region. Groups emigrating from these took new totem names, while retaining the phratry name and connection with their mother clans, now phratries. Why the clans were totemic at all does not appear. I understand that they were exogamous out of respect for the blood of their totems, the totem tabu (p. 57, note I). Against the hypothesis it may be urged (1) that we do not know that emigrants from a local centre ever select new totem names--unless, indeed, they reach a region where their old totem does not exist. This cannot have occurred constantly. Again (2), Dr. Durkheim’s theory involves the same difficulty as my own. How did the colonies from the Kangaroo group happen never to select the same totem as colonies from the Emu group, so that the same totem never occurs in both phratries? This implies deliberate arrangement. If however, totem names were given from without, by neighbours (as I shall argue), the case could not occur at all, and the same totem would appear in both phratries. If we adopt the hypothesis that two friendly ‘families,’ or ‘fire circles,’ of a cousinly character, set the first example of exogamous intermarriage--exclusively with each other--and then got totem names, they might become phratries, but whence arose the totem kins within the phratries? Shall we say that other such ‘families,’ increasing in size, and receiving totem names, came in, two by two, to Emu and Kangaroo, each of the new linked adherents taking opposite sides, Opossum going to the Kangaroo, Bandicoot to the Emu phratry? This would give the totems within the phratries, by a constant accession of other pairs of phratries, which subordinated themselves, one to Emu, one to Kangaroo. Either this hypothesis, or Dr. Durkheim’s, or my own, accounts for the phratry _plus_ totem kins arrangement, without supposing the deliberate bisection of a hitherto undivided commune. That hypothesis, if any one, of the other three, Dr. Durkheim’s, my own, or the theory of accessions to the pair of exogamous intermarrying families, be accepted, is therefore not forced upon us in defect of a better. HOW DID THE ARUNTA ANOMALY ARISE?