>Howe, et. al. said:
> "Before undertaking the laboratory work, we discussed the sample
> dissolution procedures with several palynologists and analytical
> chemists. They warned that if the fossil pollen was silicified within
> the shale matrix, excessive time in HF solutions would destroy the
> grains. Many of the samples were completely dissolved in the HCL
> solution rendering the HF dissolution step unnecessary. The HF
> dissolution was only to be employed if the rock had not been
> completely dissolved in the HCL solution."
> (http://www.rae.org/pollen.html)
>
>Did you take this into account in your procedures, or follow Doher to the
>letter? ]
I don't even know who Doher is. I used standard palynological procedures.
I don't knowe who Howe consulted, but any palynologist knows pollen is not
silicified. It is preserved because the waxy material of which the exine
is composed is practically indestructible by any chemical or physical means
apart from temperature. His comment makes no sense.
>So, are you saying that despite the extreme carefulness of your
>procedures, you had contamination by pollen which could not be destroyed
>by the HF (i.e. modern pollen)? How do you know for certain that you
>did not destroy any silicified fossil pollen with the HF? Did you check
>the samples before the HF and then after?
See above.
>
>
>I also noted that you published on the topic in 1973 and 1981. Howe,
>et.al. published in 86, 87, and 88. Where can I find your latest
>material on the subject, where you addressed the concerns of Howe, et.al.?
>
Their data speak for themselves. They are contamination.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu