Abstract
THE wide interest now taken in the study of peat will, I think, justify further reference to the subject of Dr. Pearsall's article in NATURE of December 6 and the letters from Mr. Tonks and Mr. Forbes which followed on January 24. It is satisfactory to note that Dr. Pearsall has withdrawn from the obviously fallacious correlation he at first put forward. He now, however, makes a second correlation based on the identification of the birch scrub on the peat-covered 25-foot beaches as Lewis's Upper Forest, making the latter Neolithic in age and therefore climatically in conflict with the evidence in the Pennines. This yields him the same result, namely, that climatic deductions from peat and forest beds are untrustworthy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
