But at the same time, although we may accord the term "group marriage" (if any one wishes at any price to retain it), we must note that such a state of things is radically different from marriage in the usual sense of the word, and in particular from marriage as found in actual existence in the Australian aboriginal society, and described in this study. It will be sufficient to point out that such an occasional sexual licence lasting several hours during an initiation gathering could not create any bonds of family, such as may result from community of daily life and community of interests, common inhabiting of the same dwelling, common eating, especially common rearing of children--all factors which, as will be shown below, act only in the individual family and tend to make out of the individual family a well-established and well-defined unit. We must adduce one fact which stands in opposition to what is just said. I mean the statement of Spencer and Gillen, that amongst the Urabunna the Piraungarus are "generally found living grouped together." This statement might possibly point first to a permanent state of marital relations, secondly to a common mode of living. Now it may be remarked that such an offhand statement on such a crucial point shows undoubtedly that the authors were insufficiently informed themselves on this point, and that, therefore, we must accept this statement with the utmost caution.[327] [327] Compare above, p. 108, note 2. The problem of the mode of living of the _Pirrauru_ groups involves two questions--first, what persons constituted the local group (temporary or permanent); and second, how the members of a _Pirrauru_ group lived within it. The statement of Spencer and Gillen may mean that a group of _Pirraurus_ constituted a given temporary local group. But within this group husband and wife must have formed a distinct unit. Now as to the question of how far such a grouping of _Pirraurus_ (if we accept the above statement as correct) would imply a permanent marital status between the _Pirraurus_, it is impossible to answer. On this point, too, the information about the Urabunna is vague and defective, and it is safer to base our conclusions on the more explicit and reliable material given by Howitt in the case of the Dieri. 5. Did the _Pirrauru_ union last for the whole life, or could it be dissolved? In one place we read that the relation in question lasts for life; in another place we are told[328] that the old men watch over the _Pirraurus_ in order that there may result no trouble from mutual jealousy; and if a man has too many _Pirraurus_ they compel or advise him to limit himself to one or two. No answer can be given, therefore, to this question. [328] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 182.