Amongst the Urabunna, where, as we are informed, "individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice,"[705] all children of "men who are at the same level in the generation and belong to the same class and totem are _regarded_ as the common children of these men." Still there exists "a closer tie between a man and the children of the woman who habitually live in camp with him."[706] This statement is the only one which tries to deny individual fatherhood and states the existence of group fatherhood. But as we do not know what sense should be given to the words "closer tie" and to the phrase "are regarded as the common children" we must drop this statement as quite meaningless. We know already that the relations of a father to his child have several very characteristic features; the father fondles his child; is especially attached to it; he often carries it on the march (as these same authors state in another place, see below); he has certain economic duties towards his family; he lives in the same wurley with his children. Not a single word is said about any of these things, and only quite general assertions are made. We may repeat here, with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew more concrete facts about this question they ought to have communicated them. If they told us everything they knew about the subject, then their inferences are false. This statement loses its force for the reason especially that we know how close the personal tie between the Dieri parents and their children was, and that it was quite individual. And the Dieri had the same Pirrauru institution which induces Messrs. Spencer and Gillen to inform us that there was no individual fatherhood or marriage, amongst the Urabunna. There is, therefore, much reason to mistrust this statement.[707] [705] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 63; repeated _Nor. Tr._, p. 73. [706] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 64. [707] Compare what has been said about the Pirrauru and Piraungaru above, pp. 108 _sqq._; especially p. 117, under 7.