This article is written as a tribute to the man whose name is inextricably linked with the study of kinship in Africa. It takes its point of departure from that classic article, ‘The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups’ (Fortes 1953 a [1970 b]) but is concerned with the strictures made upon it by anthropologists working in other parts of the world, particularly New Guinea. The origin of the debate was the article by Barnes (1962), ‘African Models in the New Guinea Highlands’. It refers to the ‘African Mirage in New Guinea’ which prevents ethnographers from perceiving the distinctive characteristics of the societies of the New Guinea Highlands (Barnes 1962: 5). Despite Salisbury's articles (1956, 1964), the impressive refutation by Sahlins (1965), and documentation of the importance of other forms of kinship by Kaberry (1967), articles repeating Barnes' criticisms continue to be written. Perhaps the latest and most detailed is that of de Lepervanche in Oceania (1968 a and 1968 b) in which she calls for ‘a model suitable for New Guinea’ (1968 b: 181). The implications are very serious; if, as some New Guinea ethnographers claim, Fortes' concept of unilineal descent is not applicable in New Guinea because it derives from African ethnography (Barnes 1962: 8, 9, de Lepervanche 1968 b), the whole status of anthropology as a generalising discipline, aiming at statements of universal validity is at stake. Clearly this regional parochialism was not what Fortes intended: his article devotes several pages to developing the point that the concepts he is elaborating have general validity.