the Flinders River, _kooroin_, 1, _kurto_, 2, _kurto
kooroin_, 3; at the mouth of the Norman River, _lum_, 1, _buggar_, 2,
_orinch_, 3; the Eaw tribe, _koothea_, 1, _woother_, 2, _marronoo_, 3; the
Moree, _mal_, 1, _boolar_, 2, _kooliba_, 3; the Port Essington,[30] _erad_,
1, _nargarick_, 2, _nargarickelerad_, 3; the Darnly Islanders,[31] _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 t