@article {9741,
	title = {Counts and Estimates of Taxonomic Abundance in Faunal Remains: Microtine Rodents from Bluefish Cave I},
	journal = {Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal canadien d{\textquoteright}arch{\'e}ologie},
	volume = {7},
	year = {1983},
	pages = {061-076},
	abstract = {<p>Widely advertised theoretical and methodological deficiencies in counts of identified specimens (NISP) and the minimum number of individuals (MNI) have prompted a search for alternate methods of estimating taxonomic abundance in faunal remains. Most proposed alternatives have merely represented modifications or \&$\#$39;refinements\&$\#$39; of the MNI count outlined by Theodore White thirty years ago (White 1953). Modifications by Chaplin (1971) and Krantz (1968) are examined in this paper. Recently, an alternative, based on the Peterson index, has been proposed by Fieller and Turner (1982). Based on capture-recapture techniques used in the biological sciences, the Peterson index is superior to other proposed methods, because it is statistically well founded on the hypergeometric distribution and can be framed by data-based confidence intervals. Despite these advantages, the actual use of this estimate is limited by a number of practical exigencies that will undoubtedly force zooarchaeologists to continue to use NISP and MNI counts as abundance measurements of last resort. The assumptions and requirements for the use of the Peterson index, and the \&$\#$39;behaviour\&$\#$39; of this variable as compared with NISP and the methods of White, Chaplin, and Krantz, are illustrated with microtine rodent data from Bluefish Cave I, northern Yukon Territory.</p>},
	author = {Richard E. Morlan}
}
