  It has been paid little or no attention to the implications that turbulent
fragmentation has on the validity of at least six common assumptions on the
Virial Theorem (VT), which are: (i) the only role of turbulent motions within a
cloud is to provide support against collapse, (ii) the surface terms are
negligible compared to the volumetric ones, (iii) the gravitational term is a
binding source for the clouds, (iv) the sign of the second-time derivative of
the moment of inertia determines whether the cloud is contracting or expanding,
(v) interstellar clouds are in Virial Equilibrium (VE), and (vi) Larson's
(1981) relations are the observational proof that clouds are in VE.
Interstellar clouds cannot fulfill these assumptions, however, because
turbulent fragmentation will induce flux of mass, moment and energy between the
clouds and their environment, and will favor local collapse while may disrupt
the clouds within a dynamical timescale. It is argued that, although the
observational and numerical evidence suggests that interstellar clouds are not
in VE, the so-called ``Virial Mass'' estimations, which actually should be
called ``energy-equipartition mass'' estimations, are good order-of magnitude
estimations of the actual mass of the clouds just because observational surveys
will tend to detect interstellar clouds appearing to be close to energy
equipartition. However, since clouds are actually out of VE, as suggested by
asymmetrical line profiles, they should be transient entities. These results
are compatible with observationally-based estimations for rapid star formation.
, and call into question the models for the star formation efficiency based on
clouds being in VE.

Astrophysics