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.

The numerals of a few additional tribes will show clearly that all distinct perception of number is lost as soon as these races attempt to count above 3, or at most, 4.  The Yuckaburra[33] natives can go no further than wigsin, 1, bullaroo, 2, goolbora, 3.  Above here all is referred to as moorgha, many.  The Marachowies[34] have but three distinct numerals,—­cooma, 1, cootera, 2, murra, 3.  For 4 they say minna, many.  At Streaky Bay we find a similar list, with the same words, kooma and kootera, for 1 and 2, but entirely different terms, karboo and yalkata for 3 and many.  The same method obtains in the Minnal Yungar tribe, where the only numerals are kain, 1, kujal, 2, moa, 3, and bulla, plenty.  In the Pinjarra dialect we find doombart, 1, gugal, 2, murdine, 3, boola, plenty; and in the dialect described as belonging to