Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

Reply to: Clusters of flowstone ages are not supported by statistical evidence

Nature volume 594, page E11 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

The Original Article was published on 16 June 2021

replying to P. Hopley et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03586-0 (2021)

In the accompanying Comment1, Hopley et al. focus on our use of a kernel density estimator (KDE) to illustrate the periodicity that is present within a speleothem age spectrum. We agree with the limitations of the KDE, and indeed use it simply as a more robust visualization tool than the commonly used probability density function. We stress that our interpretation and conclusions do not hinge on the use of the KDE: the very same conclusions can be drawn from a simple histogram that we present—together with the KDE—in figure 2 of our Article2. This histogram conveys the same age distribution information as the KDE, and entirely vindicates our conclusions without any reference to the KDE.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Hopley, P., Vermeesch, P., Parrish, R. & Latham, A. Clusters of flowstone ages are not supported by statistical evidence. Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03586-0 (2021).

  2. Pickering, R. et al. U–Pb-dated flowstones restrict South African early hominin record to dry climate phases. Nature 565, 226–229 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vermeesch, P. On the visualisation of detrital age distributions. Chem. Geol. 312–313, 190–194 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vermeesch, P. & Garzanti, E. Making geological sense of ‘Big Data’ in sedimentary provenance analysis. Chem. Geol. 409, 20–27 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Robyn Pickering

  2. Human Evolution Research Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Robyn Pickering, Terrence Ritzman & Benjamin J. Schoville

  3. The Australian Archaeomagnetism Laboratory, Department of Archaeology and History, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia

    Andy I. R. Herries

  4. Palaeo-Research Institute, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Andy I. R. Herries & David S. Strait

  5. School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Jon D. Woodhead, John C. Hellstrom, Helen E. Green & Bence Paul

  6. Department of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA

    Terrence Ritzman

  7. Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA

    Terrence Ritzman & David S. Strait

  8. School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Benjamin J. Schoville

  9. Evolutionary Science Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    John Hancox

Authors
  1. Robyn Pickering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andy I. R. Herries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jon D. Woodhead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John C. Hellstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Helen E. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bence Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Terrence Ritzman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David S. Strait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Benjamin J. Schoville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. John Hancox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.P. coordinated the team effort, and all authors equally contributed to the drafting and reviewing of this Reply.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robyn Pickering.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pickering, R., Herries, A.I.R., Woodhead, J.D. et al. Reply to: Clusters of flowstone ages are not supported by statistical evidence. Nature 594, E11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03587-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03587-z

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing