[951] Prof. Durkheim has pointed out (_D. Tr. S._, pp. 19 _sqq._) that the division of social functions has a most important share in creating the unity of a given group, and amongst other things in creating the solidarity of marriage: "C'est la division du travail sexuel qui est la source de la solidarité conjugal" (_loc. cit._, p. 19). This view is fully appreciated in the present study where the sexual division of functions is represented as being of foremost importance in defining individual family and marriage in Australia. But Prof. Durkheim says that in low or primitive societies division of sexual labour and conjugal solidarity are both quite rudimentary: "plus nous remontons dans le passé, plus elle se réduit à peu de chose" (_loc. cit._, p. 20). The same applies to the persistence of marriage--"la solidarité conjugale y est même très faible" (_loc. cit._, p. 22). If Prof. Durkheim applies both his assertions to hypothetical prehistoric societies, then this is not the place to discuss his views. But if he has had before his mind actually existing primitive societies, then the evidence here collected, on both these points, might possibly compel him to discuss his views more in detail, as far as the Australian society is concerned. Prof. Durkheim lays the stress of his argument on the small sexual differentiation in respect to physiology and anatomy of primitive and prehistoric men and women. But sexual division of labour may have as well _social_ as _physiological_ sources, as shown above. The custom of a communistic division of game points also to the acknowledgment of family ties beyond the narrow circle of the individual family.[952] For the duty of a man in distributing the game, according to the majority of our statements (about eight in thirteen), is governed in the first place by the degree of relationship in which he stands to different people. And it is the individual, not the group relationship that is to be taken into account here. In Howitt's statements (which are the best) we see that the parents-in-law stand always in the first place. This agrees with what we read in Spencer and Gillen; and from both these statements we may conclude that these duties are a sort of continuation or equivalent of the bride-price, of which we find traces in Australia. [952] It will be remembered that individual family means throughout this book: husband, wife and their young children living with them.