In the first place, it must be remarked that some of the facts adduced are not really instances of promiscuity. Sir Edward Belcher’s statement as regards the Andamanese evidently suggests monogamy; and among the Massagetæ and the Teehurs, the occurrence of marriage is expressly confirmed, though the marriage tie was loose. As for the aborigines of the Californian Peninsula, it must be remembered that the want of an equivalent for the verb “to marry” does not imply the want of the fact itself. Baegert indicates, indeed, that marriage did occur among them, when he says that “each man took as many wives as he liked, and if there were several sisters in a family he married them all together.”[273] And throughout the Pacific Islands, marriage is a recognized institution. Nowhere has debauchery been practised more extensively than among the Areois of Tahiti. Yet Mr. Ellis assures us that, “although addicted to every kind of licentiousness themselves, each Arcoi had his own wife; ... and so jealous were they in this respect that improper conduct towards the wife of one of their own number was sometimes punished with death.”[274] As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison’s statements have caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert that, among the Australian savages, groups of males are actually found united to groups of females.[275] But after all, Mr. Fison does not seem really to mean to affirm the present existence of group-marriages. The chief argument advanced by him in support of his theory is grounded on the terms of relationship in use in the tribes. These terms belong to the “classificatory system” of Mr. Morgan;[276] but Mr. Fison admits that he is not aware of any tribe in which the actual practice is to its full extent what the terms of relationship imply. “Present usage,” he says, “is everywhere in advance of the system so implied, and the terms are survivals of an ancient right, not precise indications of custom as it is.”[277] The same is granted by Mr. Howitt.[278] Yet it will be pointed out further on to what absurd results we must be led, if, guided by such terms, we begin to speculate upon early marriage. Moreover, if a Kŭbi and an Ipātha address each other as spouse, this does not imply that in former times every Kŭbi was married to every Ipātha indiscriminately. On the contrary, the application of such a familiar term might be explained from the fact that the women who may be a man’s wives, and those who cannot possibly be so, stand in a widely different relation to him.[279] It seems also as if a communism in wives among the Port Lincoln aborigines had been inferred by Mr. Schürmann chiefly from the nomenclature. Indeed, Mr. Curr, who has procured more information regarding the Australian aborigines than any other investigator, so far as I know, states that, in Australia, men and women have never been found living in a state of promiscuous intercourse, but _the reverse is a matter of notoriety_.[280] “It