Curr uses the term _tribe_ in place of our _local group_. In his general work on Australia he gives a definition of tribe which quite agrees with what we called local group.[380] "By the word tribe I mean a number of men closely allied by blood, and living in the strictest alliance, offensive and defensive, who, with their wives and children, occupy, practically in common, and in exclusion of others, a tract of country...." Everybody must respect the customs of his tribe; and as no one may live apart from the tribal community, "there is no alternative between compliance with tribal custom and death."[381] "Although the lands of a tribe are _nominally_ parcelled out amongst its members, it is the fact that they are used in common, and for several reasons must have always been used so." First, because for mutual protection the tribesmen must have often associated. Secondly, because of the economic conditions the tribe often was compelled to feed on a given spot.[382] [380] It is used here in agreement with G. C. Wheeler, Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, etc. [381] Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 61, 62. [382] _Ibid._, pp. 64, 65. Angas, describing his travels in the Murray River district, tells that he met several times with native encampments; from the passage in question[383] we may infer that they were small groups. He says[384] that on the seaside (Encounter Bay), on the lakes, and on the Murray banks, where means of subsistence were fairly easy, the local groups were numerous. But this information is very loose. [383] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 74. [384] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 81.