Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes contradictory.  We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a pirrauru is always a brother’s wife or a wife’s sister (they are usually the same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their wives[161].  But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can also become pirraurus.  It appears further that a woman may ask for a pirrauru, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear.  It is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the arrangement.  Further we find that important men have many pirrauru wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention.  Then again we are told that when two new pirrauru pairs are allotted to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted.  Are we to understand from this that the allocation of new pirraurus is a rare event or that the pirrauru relationship is a very temporary affair?  Or does re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over?  If the latter, the terminology is very unfortunate.  Gason’s statement is perfectly clear:  once a pirrauru, always a pirrauru[162].  Again does it imply that the wishes[163] of the already existing pirraurus are consulted in the matter or not?  If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy between pirraurus, especially when one of them (the male) is unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one another.  Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother’s wife as his pirrauru, giving presents to his brother.  Does this imply that the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse it, or that it is purchased?  Again we read “a man is privileged to obtain a number of wives from his noas in common with the other men of his group, while a woman’s wish can only be carried out with the consent of her tippa-malku husband.”  This latter statement clearly implies that a man can obtain a pirrauru without the consent of the tippa-malku husband, but this contradicts what has already been told us about the exchange by brothers of their wives.  Exchange is clearly not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the matter, it is rather a transfer.  These are by no means all the unsettled questions on which light is needed.  What, for example, is the position of a pirrauru wife whose tippa-malku husband dies?  Does she pass to a new tippa-malku husband?  If so, must he be an ex-pirrauru?  Does she continue in the pirrauru relation to her former pirraurus, regardless of her new husband’s wishes?  Can the pirrauru relationship be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?

With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special ceremony is necessary to make the pirrauru relation legal; this is performed by the head or heads of the men’s totems, and need not be described here.