Eye _meal_ _meul_. Hair _marra_ _morye_. Fingers _mingel_ _mungal bah_. As the Endeavour River was the nearest point to the Gulf of Carpentaria from which we possessed a vocabulary, the circumstance that no more than three words out of seventeen coincided, was a good measure of the extent to which the Australian dialects exhibited the phænomenon of _difference_. Still the likeness, as far as it went, was a fact to be admitted on the other side. Now, if we go round the whole coast of Australia, and compare the vocabulary from one point with the vocabulary of the next known locality to it, we shall find that, allowing for difference of distance, the similarity or dissimilarity is, there or thereabouts, the similarity or dissimilarity between the two vocabularies just mentioned, _i.e._, that the former is shown by the identity between a few fundamental terms, the latter by a discrepancy between the majority. The comparison, however, of contiguous dialects--gives but one series of facts. It merely shows that we can go all round the island, and find that, of three dialects compared, the last shall have a partial agreement with the second; by no means showing that such (or, indeed, that any) similarity shall exist between the third and first. Nevertheless, for philological reasoning, such a similarity as the last is required. This we get at by two methods,--firstly, by comparing the vocabularies of distant points; secondly, by taking one, or more, particular vocabularies, and comparing them with some, or all, of the others _en masse_. By each of these processes, applied to Australian languages, we arrive at the same conclusion. The second will be considered in the sequel. A simple instance of the first is, that out of sixty words from Jervis's Bay, compared with sixty from Gulf St. Vincent, the following coincide: ENGLISH. JERVIS'S BAY. GULF ST. VINCENT. Forehead _holo_ _ioullo_. Man _mika_ _meio_. Milk _awanham_ _ammenhalo_. Tongue _talen_ _talein_. Hand _maramale_ _malla_. Nipple _amgnann_ _amma_. Nails _berenou_ _pere_. Premising now, that (as all the published grammars exhibit an agglutinate structure) the evidence taken from the grammatical character of the Australian languages is confirmatory rather than derogatory to the evidence taken from the comparison of vocabularies, we come to a fourth class of facts, viz., the extent to which two or more Australian dialects agree or disagree with some third language or class of languages; and as this involves the still more general question of the _external_ relations of the Australian languages as a class, its consideration will be deferred for the present. At present it is sufficient to say that it is affirmative to a fundamental unity of tongue.