Summing up, there are three different kinds of "proprietorship" in the aboriginal society; or more correctly three kinds of claims to, and connections with, a certain territory. First, actual rights of roaming, hunting, fishing and digging; these rights belong usually to the local group (exceptionally, perhaps, to single families or individuals). Secondly, the customary right of local groups forming a tribe, mutually to use their hunting-ground; these forms of proprietorship have been designated "tribal over-right."[455] Third, the immaterial claim of individuals or families to a portion of the local district; this special right seems to be rather exceptional, and it appears problematic whether it has any economic character. In the light of this distinction it can easily be understood how the actual right of the local group was modified in two directions. The tribesman was tolerated on or invited to the ground, whereas the non-tribesman was killed. On the other hand, individuals or single families had possibly some claims of an unimportant character to particular spots. In general, we find it expressed in nearly all the statements more or less explicitly that the natives had a very clear idea of the rights of the local group to its territory, and that the boundaries of it were respected without exception.[456] [455] In agreement with Mr. Wheeler. [456] Compare nearly all of our statements, especially those of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Curr. Mr. Wheeler writes in his conclusions (_loc. cit._, p. 161). "Territorial conquest is never sought, for the absolute right of the local group to its district is fully recognized." The respect for boundaries is also stated: in _Science of Man_, xi. (1910), p. 197 ("tribal" area sharply marked; death is the punishment for trespass). _Ibid._ (1900), p. 85. _Ibid._ (1901), p. 9.