6. We mentioned above that if the _Pirrauru_ relation, according to Howitt's supposition there quoted, only involved sexual licence during big tribal gatherings, this relation would be absolutely deprived of any of the characters that are the chief constituents of marriage and family. But here we must indicate that such an assumption is not quite justifiable. In fact, in some of the facts related about the _Pirraurus_, there are hints pointing to the existence of economic bonds and of community in daily life between _Pirraurus_. We read[329] that if in the absence of her husband a woman lives with one or two of her _Pirraurus_, she occupies with them one hut and shares with them the food. Therefore, in the absence of her husband, a _Pirrauru_ actually took his place, and in this case the _Pirrauru_ relationship is not merely a sexual connection, but it assumes the real form of marriage. In another place[330] we read that a man possessing several _Pirraurus_ may lend one of them to some one who is deprived of this advantage. Thus it seems that the _Pirraurus_ acquire a kind of real right over their _Pirrauru_ wives; and that it goes as far as the faculty of disposing of them. And again we are informed that if a woman has a young man for a _Pirrauru_ she is often jealous of him and looks strictly after him, and if he does not obey her readily enough, tries even to compel him by punishment.[331] All these instances, which could perhaps be further multiplied, show that under certain circumstances, which we unfortunately do not know with sufficient precision, the _Pirrauru_ relationship assumes a much more serious character than a mere sexual licence exercised during a few hours. [329] _Idem_, J.A.I., xx. p. 57. [330] _Ibid._, p. 58. [331] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 183.