It is unnecessary to say much about the first of these possibilities.
First, there is no evidence to show that such a thing has taken place;
secondly, we can see no reason why such a thing should take place;
thirdly, if such a change of meaning did take place, it is quite clear
that we have no grounds for regarding the philological evidence for
group marriage as having the slightest significance.

In connection with the second hypothesis--that the names actually
represent the relations formerly existing, it may be well to preface the
discussion by a few remarks on the regulation of marriage in Australia.
The rules by which the Australian native is bound, when he sets out to
choose a wife, make the area of choice as a rule dependent on his
status, that is to say, he must, in order to find a wife, go to another
phratry, class, totem-kin, or combination of two of these, membership of
which depends on descent, direct or indirect; on the other hand he may
be limited by regulations dependent on locality, that is to say he may
have to take a wife from a group resident in a certain area. There is
reason to suppose that the latter regulations are the outcome of earlier
status regulations which have fallen into desuetude. However this may
be, all that we are here concerned with is the fact that regulations in
this case also are virtually dependent on descent, inasmuch as a man is
not in practice free to reside where he likes, but remains in his own
group, though occasionally he joins that of his wife (this does not
apparently affect the exogamic rule). The groups are therefore to all
intents and purposes totem-kins with male descent.

Taking the Kurnai as our example of the non-class-organised groups, we
find that the fraternal relationship once started goes on for ever; the
result of this is that with few exceptions the whole of the
intermarrying groups, so far as they are of the same generation, are
brothers and sisters. Dr Howitt, whose authority on matters of
Australian ethnology is final, recognises that on the principles on
which group marriage is deduced from terms of relationship, this fact
should point to the Kurnai being yet in the stage of the undivided
commune (why, it is difficult to see, when they are definitely
exogamous), but regards the argument from terms of relationship as
untrustworthy in this instance. If it is not reliable in one case it may
well be unreliable in all; we are entitled to ask supporters of t