Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology

It seems clear from how this article evolved that the basic subject is Boxt and Raab's views of the Puvunga issues. I find that their analysis is too flawed and superficial to be used in a comparative study and is misleading as a presentation of the issues. Therefore, my main purpose is to correct some errors and misrepresentations of data and to point out that they omitted important information that is contrary to their views. The rest of this comment is a summary of how the article evolved and the situation on campus which may account for errors.