In recent years the calculation of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) represented in archaeological faunal collections has become standard practice in excavation reports, and refinements of this statistic and its various calculations have continued to appear (Grayson 1973, 1978, and refs; Casteel 1977 and refs; Fieller and Turner 1982 and refs). In many cases the MNI is the best approximation to be derived from the fragmentary data available and may bs a useful basis for assessing the relative importance of different animal species in a sample or between samples, although it is easy to construct hypothetical situations where the results obtained in this way would be misleading. The central problem with the MNI is that it says nothing about the numerical distance between itself and reality it is merely the number of animals needed to account for the faunal components in the sample and gives no indication of how many animals might have contributed to that sample.