If our suggestion as to the origin and significance of the ‘classificatory terms of relationship’ be plausible, then the theory of a pristine past of ‘communal’ or of ‘group marriage’ will lose what Mr. Darwin deemed the chief evidence in its favour, the evidence from terms of relationship. But there remains the evidence from ‘survivals,’ in institutions. For example, among the Urabunna, women of a certain seniority, totem and ‘phratry’ are _Nupa_ to men of the relative status among males. They are the men’s potential wives. In actual practice each individual man has one or perhaps two of these _Nupa_ women who are specially attached to himself, and live in his camp. They are his wives. But each man has also, or many men have, other women of the _Nupa_ set, who by an allotment, which the elders arrange, are his _Piraungaru_, He is, that is to say, their ‘second master,’ after their husbands. This is a kind of _Cicisbeism_, recognised and regulated by customary law, and sanctioned by a definite ceremony. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen therefore say ‘individual marriage does not exist, either in name or in practice, among the Urabunna tribe.’ Their idea appears to be that once every man was the husband of every _Nupa_ woman who was accessible, and that the _Piraungaru_ arrangement is a nascent restriction upon, or survival of, this communal marriage. It is admitted that a man may now try to prevent his wife from having sexual relations with her Piraungaru man, just as an Italian of the eighteenth century might have done in the case of his wife’s _Cicisbeo_. ‘But this leads to a fight, and the husband is looked upon as churlish.’ The Italian husband would have undergone the same reproach, yet _he_ lived in a society which in theory, and as Christian, insisted on individual marriage. The question arises, is the _Piraungaru_ arrangement a modified survival of communal marriage, or is it a mere chartered libertinism in customary practice, and not a ‘rudimentary survival’? It is certainly found among the tribes most tenacious of archaic institutions. Mr. Crawley thinks, however, and, under correction, I agree with him, that the _Piraungaru_ system is no survival, and that it ‘has never been more fully developed than it is now.’[27] PIRAUNGARU AND PIRAURA As to this Piraungaru affair, as usual we need, and do not get, the help of philology. What does the word ‘Piraungaru’ literally mean? Among the Dieri the Piraungaru custom prevails, and the persons affected by it are called Piraura--the resemblance to Piraungaru is striking. Now Mr. Howitt tells us that the Headman of the Dieri is called _Pinaru_, from _pina_, ‘great,’ but he also calls these Headmen _Piraurus_, the same title as he gives to the men and women allotted to each other on the system of native Cicisbeism.[28]