_Statements._--Among the Kurnai[918] the hunter who killed a big piece of game gave some of it to the men who assisted him in killing, cooking or carving. The chief parts were divided among his wives' parents and his own parents. These in return supplied their son and son-in-law respectively with meat the next day. Similar rules, varying according to the game and tribe, obtained also among the Murring tribes of New South Wales.[919] Important for us is the general feature of communism; the preponderancy given to the parents of a man and his wife. If the man be unmarried he provides chiefly his parents and his brother and sister.[920] The grandparents cared especially for their grandchildren.[921] [918] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, App. D, p. 261. Compare _Idem_, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 756-759. [919] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 264-267, and _Nat. Tr._, pp. 759-760 (refers to the Ngarigo tribe of the Murring nation). [920] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 259. [921] _Ibid._, pp. 262, 263. In the Wurrunjeri tribe a kangaroo was distributed among those present in camp and the hunter's family. The man had (even in case of a limited food supply) to provide for his own and his wife's parents. They cared in turn for him.[922] Communism obtained among the Kulin tribes.[923] [922] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 765. [923] _Ibid._, p. 767. A communism, similar to that of the Kurnai, prevailed among the Narran-ga.[924] The same is related about the tribes of the Karamundi[925]; the Wolgal tribe,[926] amongst whom the woman was provided for with food by her parents; the Wiradjuri; Wotjobaluk; Mukjarawaint.[927] Among the Gournditch-Mara game was divided amongst all present in camp.[928] [924] Of South Australia, Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 762. [925] _Ibid._ [926] _Ibid._, p. 764. [927] _Ibid._ [928] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 277 and _Nat. Tr._, p. 765. J. Dawson states that food brought by a hunter to the camp was distributed so that he and even his brother gets the worst part of it. "The best pieces of birds and quadrupeds and the finest eels" were given away. An anecdote is told in support of this statement which appears trustworthy.[929] It may be pointed out that this apparently refers only to food brought by men; and that this statement only says that the shares of the individual and his brother were neglected; but it does not make clear how the shares of the other relations (family, wife, parents) were regulated, if they were favoured or the reverse. [929] Dawson, p. 22.