Thus the impression drawn from the passages just quoted[5] is that there is no individual relationship and, what follows as an immediate consequence, no individual marriage, nor individual family in Australia. Such a conclusion would be absolutely false. For the same author (Howitt) writes: "Individual marriage in Australian tribes has been evident to everyone."[6] Curr speaks in still more positive terms: "No relationship but that of blood is known amongst Australians."[7] The social relations which exist amongst the Australian aborigines are of five sorts; first, those of family; second, those of the tribe; third, those between associated tribes; fourth, those of neighbours who belong to different associations; fifth, all other persons.[8] We see that in Curr's statements there is again no room for any kind of group relationship. Obviously Curr's information contradicts in plain terms the foregoing set of statements, and such a contradiction among our best informants is truly puzzling. There seems to be some misunderstanding in the present problem. [5] I have quoted the best first-hand authorities; instances could easily be multiplied as well from their works as also from other sources. [6] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115. [7] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. iii. [8] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 60. This is not only my own opinion. Mr. A. Lang discusses the same question and finds it necessary to prove in a short article that individual relationship exists in Australia. He says: "It is certain that 'blood' or 'own' relations are perfectly recognized. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen inadvertently deny this, saying: 'The savage Australian, it may be said with truth, has no idea of relationships as we understand them.'" This example is not the only one, as has been shown above, and indeed their number could be easily multiplied. Mr. Lang proves by several instances that this opinion of Spencer and Gillen is erroneous, and concludes: "The savage Australian does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations. It was necessary to make this fact clear and certain, as it has been denied."[9] The same contradiction has also been pointed out by Dr. Westermarck: "As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison's statements have caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert that among the Australian savages groups of males are actually found united to groups of females."[10] And in a footnote Dr. Westermarck quotes Lubbock, Morgan, Kohler, Kovalevsky. With such views Dr. Westermarck contrasts Curr's[11] opinion that strict monogamy obtains, and that of the Rev. J. Mathew,[12] "who fails to see that group marriage 'has been proven to exist in the past and certainly does not occur in Australia now.'" [9] _Procs. B. Academy_, vol. iii. 1908, May report, p. 4. [10] Westermarck Ed. _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 56. [11] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 126.