Turning to the languages of the extinct, or fast vanishing, tribes of Australia, we find a still more noteworthy absence of numeral expressions. In the Gudang dialect[29] but two numerals are found--_pirman_, 1, and _ilabiu_, 2; in the Weedookarry, _ekkamurda_, 1, and _kootera_, 2; and in the Queanbeyan, _midjemban_, 1, and _bollan_, 2. In a score or more of instances the numerals stop at 3. The natives of Keppel Bay count _webben_, 1, _booli_, 2, _koorel_, 3; of the Boyne River, _karroon_, 1, _boodla_, 2, _numma_, 3; of the Flinders River, _kooroin_, 1, _kurto_, 2, _kurto kooroin_, 3; at the mouth of the Norman River, _lum_, 1, _buggar_, 2, _orinch_, 3; the Eaw tribe, _koothea_, 1, _woother_, 2, _marronoo_, 3; the Moree, _mal_, 1, _boolar_, 2, _kooliba_, 3; the Port Essington,[30] _erad_, 1, _nargarick_, 2, _nargarickelerad_, 3; the Darnly Islanders,[31] _netat_, 1, _naes_, 2, _naesa netat_, 3; and so on through a long list of tribes whose numeral scales are equally scanty. A still larger number of tribes show an ability to count one step further, to 4; but beyond this limit the majority of Australian and Tasmanian tribes do not go. It seems most remarkable that any human being should possess the ability to count to 4, and not to 5. The number of fingers on one hand furnishes so obvious a limit to any of these rudimentary systems, that positive evidence is needed before one can accept the statement. A careful examination of the numerals in upwards of a hundred Australian dialects leaves no doubt, however, that such is the fact. The Australians in almost all cases count by pairs; and so pronounced is this tendency that they pay but little attention to the fingers. Some tribes do not appear ever to count beyond 2--a single pair. Many more go one step further; but if they do, they are as likely as not to designate their next numeral as two-one, or possibly, one-two. If this step is taken, we may or may not find one more added to it, thus completing the second pair. Still, the Australian's capacity for understanding anything which pertains to number is so painfully limited that even here there is sometimes an indefinite expression formed, as many, heap, or plenty, instead of any distinct numeral; and it is probably true that no Australian language contains a pure, simple numeral for 4. Curr, the best authority on this subject, believes that, where a distinct word for 4 is given, investigators have been deceived in every case.[32] If counting is carried beyond 4, it is always by means of reduplication. A few tribes gave expressions for 5, fewer still for 6, and a very small number appeared able to reach 7. Possibly the ability to count extended still further; but if so, it consisted undoubtedly in reckoning one pair after another, without any consciousness whatever of the sum total save as a larger number.