It distresses me that I am unable to understand Dr. Durkheim's defence. He does say (L'An. Soc. i. p. 6) that the colonies of "clans" too populous "to exist within their space" "end by taking a totem which is all their own, and thenceforth constitute new clans." He also does say that "the totem is not a thing which men think they can dispose of at their will,... at least so long as totemic beliefs are in vigour" (L'An. Soc. v. p. 110). But his hypothetical colonies did "dispose of" their old totems "at their will," and took new totems "all their own," and that while "totemic beliefs were in their vigour." I was saying nothing about le principe de filiation totémique, nor was Dr. Durkheim when he spoke of clan colonies changing their totems. I print Dr. Durkheim's defence as others, more acute than myself, may find it satisfactory.]
[27] Totemism, p. 62, 1887.
[28] Totemism, p. 65, citing Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 26 et seq.
[29] Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 49.
[30] Ibid., pp. 26, 27.
[31] Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 168. Totemism, p. 85.
[32] J. A. I., xiv. p. 349. Native Tribes of South-East Australia, p. 100. I do not know certainly whether Mr. Howitt now translates Mukwara and Kilpara as Eagle Hawk and Crow.
[33] Native Tribes of South-East Australia, p. 104.
[34] Totemism, p. 85. Howitt, Native Tribes of South-East Australia, p. 112.
[35] Powell, Report of Bureau of Ethnology, 1879-80, p. 60.