Page:Native Tribes of South-East Australia.djvu/253

V there is the same peculiar statement by the native informant, that certain totems belong to his sub-class, thus dividing the totems into four groups, while the totem is in fact attached to one sub-class in one generation and to the other in the next. This is seen from the subjoined diagram of marriage and descent in this tribe.

This shows that while the sub-class name alternates with each generation, the totem name remains fixed in the female line direct. While Gurgela-kangaroo takes the fellow sub-class name to that of his mother, he takes her totem. This is one of those points which I have not yet been able to satisfactorily settle, namely, why is it that a man of a certain sub-class claims certain totems as belonging to it? It seems that he sees only his sub-class, to which the totem certainly belongs so far as he is concerned, but in the next generation his sister's children will bear it, together with another sub-class name.

In the Dalebura tribe a widow went to the eldest brother of the deceased husband, not necessarily as a wife, but if not, then to place her family under his protection. For instance, if there were a daughter who had been betrothed by the deceased, it would be the duty of the brother to see that the promise should be carried out. If the daughter were not betrothed, then the brother of the deceased would have the disposal of her. The sons of the widow would be protected by their father's brother. This arrangement would be of advantage to the widow's brother-in-law, because as long as she remained under his care he would have another hand to assist in providing the daily necessary food.