Henn's (1984) interesting review underscores one of the hazards of impatience: the audience that expects the prelude to subsume the fugue always risks disappointment. Henn's disappointment with our work in the Sacramento River Canyon springs in part from his failure to distinguish some important stages in the conduct of inquiry, and he is led, at our disadvantage, to review our achievement of goals to which we did not aspire.
Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
