more clearly when all these points are exhaustively discussed in their bearing upon the individual family. [335] Compare, however, the definition given by N. W. Thomas, _loc. cit._, p. 128, who shows also how misleading an indiscriminate use of such terms may be. [336] And some others. For instance, Prof. Frazer in his new work, _loc. cit._, i. pp. 363 _sqq._, where the theories and views of these authorities on _Pirrauru_ are accepted without any criticism. [337] _Loc. cit._, p. 136. Now I would like to show that Howitt, as well as Spencer and Gillen, based his assertions as to the group marriage character of the _Pirrauru_ relation upon a misleading exaggeration of the importance of the sexual side of marriage. Spencer and Gillen say that every man has one or two individual wives or _Nupa_ "allotted to him as wives, and to whom he has the first but not the exclusive right of access."[338] But besides these there is the _Pirrauru_ institution in which "a group of women actually have marital relations with a group of men." And as a conclusion, it follows simply, that in Australia there exists a group marriage, and that not a "pretended" one (Spencer and Gillen criticize here Dr. Westermarck's expression), but a "real" one. This reasoning would inspire some mistrust by its summary and laconic character alone.[339] But it is also evident that in the passage quoted the authors speak exclusively of the sexual side of marriage, and that they actually mean to imply that this sexual side is everything which requires attention, if marriage in a given case should be described. And this is obviously false. The incorrect reasoning is repeated by the same authors in their later work.[340] From the fact that sexual access is open to the _Pirraurus_, and that there are no special names for the individual parents and children (which does not seem to hold good for the Dieri, however), the inference is drawn that group marriage exists instead of individual marriage. Not even the conditions under which a man has access to his _Pirrauru_ are discussed! Our discussion (from Howitt's detailed data) has shown that even in sexual matters the _Pirrauru_ are far behind the Tippa Malku; indeed, that there is no comparison between the sexual rights of an individual husband and of a _Pirrauru_. [338] _Nat. Tr._, p. 109. [339] Mr. Thomas has also remarked (_loc. cit._, p. 128) that Spencer and Gillen, who speak on page 109 of the real and not pretended group marriage among the Urabunna, say on the next page, that in the same tribe group marriage preceded the present state of things--and so contradict themselves. Such a carelessness is remarkable in a work, which in all other respects is a masterpiece; and all these reasons induce us to suspect that the subject in question must have been in theory as well as in facts not very familiar to our authors.