The rights of a local group over its territory are, on the other hand, the most important form of ownership, and the only one which possesses economic features. These rights mean that all members of a local group may roam over its territory and use all the products, hunt and collect food and useful objects. In the case of the Central and North Central tribes we are expressly told that no individual or family claims may interfere with the rights that every member of the local group has to the whole local area. In twenty-one of our thirty-one statements referring to the right of the local group, we are not told of any family or individual proprietorship. In the remaining eight cases single families or male individuals seem to have some vague claims to special tracts of country. In three cases the information is ambiguous on this point. In the case of the Bangerang, Moreton Bay tribes (J. D. Lang), King George's Sound natives (Nind and Browne), this right is either of a merely mystic, intangible character,[452] or it is a formal right which gives to the individual the priority in decisions as to hunting, burning of grass, etc., and makes him "master of ceremony" in cases of an assembly on the given spot. In two instances this individual "land ownership" is stated to assume a more economic aspect (G. S. Lang and W. E. Roth). There are, besides, two statements on family "ownership" which do not mention the local group. According to one of them (Collins) individual claims to land have a mystic, fictional character; according to Grey's statement, individual property in land was the only positive one; but this latter statement is inconsistent and does not define the sense of the word "property,"[453] and is therefore of little weight. So on the whole we have three statements asserting that landed property of an economic character was vested in individuals or in single families respectively. On closer examination, one of them appears to be quite ambiguous (G. S. Lang), and another one inconsistent with its context (Grey). Roth's statement seems to be an exception. He says: "For one family or individual to obtain, without permission, vegetable, fowl or meat upon the land belonging to another family" constitutes a trespass; but then he adds that owing to their great hospitality each family readily invites its neighbours and friends to partake of the products of its land. Roth's statement, although an exception, deserves to be noted, owing to its explicitness and to the reliability of the author. It is only regrettable he does not inform us concerning one point more, whether these families or individuals respectively resided usually on their territories and used them exclusively, or whether they usually aggregated and lived on each other's domains, every one being only the host on his own territory. It is only in the first case that individual proprietorship would have an actual importance; accepting the second