Among the Narrinyeri[188], the old men have a right of access to the newly initiated girls, but apparently Dr Howitt does not regard this as a survival.  On the other hand the narumbe (initiated youths), who may not at this period take wives, had unrestricted rights over the younger women, those “of his own class and totem not excepted,” and this Dr Howitt regards as a survival from the days of the undivided commune, though if it is so it is hard to see why they should have rights only over the younger women.  The practice does not appear to differ from the free love found among the Dieri except in the absence of class restrictions and its limitation to the period after initiation which is among many other peoples a period of sexual licence.

Another group of customs, also interpreted by Dr Howitt as a survival of group marriage and an “expiation for individual marriage,” calls for some discussion.  It is unnecessary to refer here to the explanation of the jus primae noctis suggested by Mr Crawley.  It may be that the matter can also to some extent be explained as payment for services, in the same way as the pirrauru relation shows some signs of being a quid pro quo.

In certain tribes access to the bride is permitted to men of the group of the husband.  Among the Kuinmurbura they are the men who have aided the husband to carry off the woman[189]; and the same is the case with the Kurnandaburi and Kamilaroi tribes[190].  It is very significant that among the Narrinyeri the right of access only accrues in case of elopement and precisely to those men who actually give assistance in the abduction, a fact hard to explain on the theory of expiation[191].  Among the Mukjarawaint the right seems to belong to those of the same totem, but apparently the young men only[192]; but here too their position as accessories is quite clear, as indeed it must be in any tribe where the right accrues to men of the same totem.  By all the rules of savage justice a punishment may be inflicted in these cases either on the offender himself or on the men of his totem.  It is therefore not strange that they require from the abductor some return for the danger to which he exposes them, especially if they actually take part in the abduction.  An aberrant form of the custom is found among the Kurnai, among whom the jus primae noctis falls to men initiated at the same jeraeil as the bridegroom.

Among the Kurnandaburi there was a period of unrestricted licence after the exercise of the jus primae noctis, even the father of the bride being allowed access to her.  This did not of course violate totem or phratry regulations.  Dr Howitt does not comment on the case, but it would have been interesting to hear whether both these customs are to be regarded as survivals and if so what caused the duplication[193].