Mr. McLennan thought that all these terms were ‘terms of address,’ used to avoid the employment of personal names, and Dr. Westermarck holds that ‘there can scarcely be any doubt that the terms for relationship are, in their origin, terms of address.’ Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, after impartial consideration, cannot accept this view, for Australia; where the terms are very numerous, and stand for relations very complicated, connected with the intermarrying groups, and with social duties. In addressing a person, his or her individual name (our Christian name) is freely used.[14] They believe that the terms can only be explained ‘on the theory of the former existence of group marriage, and further, that this has of necessity given rise to the terms of relationship used by the Australian natives.’ These opinions are shared by Messrs. Fison and Howitt. The former says, ‘It must, I think, be allowed that the classificatory terms point to group marriage,’ and though Bastian denies this, Mr. Fison supports his theory by the Dieri custom of allotting paramours (pinauru) to men and women, out of the sets which may intermarry.[15] To this problem we return; meanwhile it may seem impertinent in mere ethnologists of the study to hint a doubt as to the conclusions of observers on the spot. Mr. Crawley, however, has no hesitations. The use of the terms of relationship, he thinks, does not testify to a past of ‘Group Marriage,’ or to a remoter past of promiscuity, but is ‘the regular result of the primitive theory of relationship; the system codifies a combination of relation and relationship, “address,” and age.’ The terms in use ‘do not in themselves necessarily point to a previous promiscuity, or even to a present group marriage,’ as Messrs. Spencer and Gillen believe.