With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the tippa-malku spouse always takes precedence of the pirrauru spouse.  Where two men are pirrauru to the same woman, the tippa-malku husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share his rights and duties with the younger.  It is the duty of the pirrauru husband to protect a woman during the absence of her tippa-malku husband.

A woman cannot refuse to take a pirrauru who has been regularly allotted to her.  In her tippa-malku husband’s absence the pirrauru husband takes his place as a matter of right.  He cannot however take her away from the tippa-malku husband without his consent except at certain ceremonial times[164].  One other fact may be noted.  An influential man hires out his pirraurus to those who have none.

Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well to mention the analogous customs of the only two tribes outside the Dieri nation where the same relation is asserted to exist, and certain cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all probability, as on the same level as the pirrauru custom.  In the Kurnandaburi, according to an informant of Dr Howitt’s, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united, apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe assembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other times[165].

Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with his sister-in-law (wife’s sister or brother’s wife), although they are in the relation of Kodi-molli and practise a modified avoidance.  This he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage.  It is not however clear that it is more than what we have called a liaison.  Our authority does not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet that any ceremony initiates the relations[166].  In the absence of these details we cannot regard his view as probable.  It may however be noted that the widow in this tribe passes to the brother.

The only other case of “group marriage” which Dr Howitt gives[167] is in the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland.  Here however, so far from being group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic polyandry.  A man’s unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties, the child is said to term them its father.  It may however be pointed out that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any other man besides the primary husband.

It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we have is neither precise nor free from contradiction.  A most essential point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the pirrauru relationship.  Among the Dieri the men may be of different totems.  Is this the case among the Wakelbura?  Was it always the case among the Dieri?