seems to me,” he says, “after a careful examination of the subject, that there is not within our knowledge a single fact, or linguistic expression which requires us to have recourse to the theory of group-marriage to explain it, but that there are several ... directly at variance with that theory.”[281] The Rev. John Mathew asserts also, in his recent paper on ‘The Australian Aborigines,’ that he fails to see that group-marriage “has been proven to exist in the past, and it certainly does not occur in Australia now.”[282] At any rate, it may be asserted that such group-marriages are different from the promiscuity which is presumed to have prevailed in primitive society. And this may with even more reason be said of the marriages of the Tôttiyars, Nairs and Todas, of which at least those of the Todas have originated, I believe, in true polyandry. Many of the assertions made as to peoples living together promiscuously are evidently erroneous. Travellers are often apt to misapprehend the manners and customs of the peoples they visit, and we should therefore, if possible, compare the statements of different writers, especially when so delicate and private a matter as the relation between the sexes is concerned. Sir Edward Belcher’s statement about the Andamanese has been disproved by Mr. Man, who, after a very careful investigation of this people, says not only that they are strictly monogamous, but that divorce is unknown, and conjugal fidelity till death not the exception but the rule among them.[283] As regards the Bushmans, Sir John Lubbock does not indicate the source from which he has taken the statement that they are “entirely without marriage;” all the authorities I have consulted, unanimously assert the reverse. Burchell was told that even a second wife is never taken until the first has become old, and that the old wives remain with the husband on the same terms as before.[284] Barrow tells us almost the same.[285] Indeed, as we have already seen, the family is the chief social institution of this people.