[221] Nat. Tr., p. 510.
[222] Nor. Tr., pp. 521 sqq.
[223] Nat. Tr., p. 502.
[224] Nor. Tr., p. 522.
[225] Levirate; see above, [p. 63].
[226] Nat. Tr., p. 507.
[227] Ibid.
[228] Roth, p. 164.
[229] Howitt, p. 724.
[230] The solution of this problem would, in the first place, require a revision of the concept of survival, in order to avoid arbitrariness when classifying one custom as a survival, another as an innovation. I venture to say such classifications have been made too carelessly. I think it will be clear from the whole of this book, that the individual family should not be considered as a mere innovation, and that, accordingly, there is hardly any justification for treating the customs in question as survivals. But this is only by way of parenthesis; these problems lie outside our task. They must be treated on a broader basis than that of the Australian ethnographic area only.