On 14 March 2008 Joan Warmbold wrote in relation to Judith Rich Harris's *The Nurture Assumption*:
> When I read it, I was astonished at the amazingly poor scholarship > throughout. First, she does not provide one (not one!) footnote, > therefore making it impossible for readers to determine the source > of her various conclusions and beliefs. Joan: I'm puzzled by your writing the above. In fact *The Nurture Assumption* contains 26 pages of endnotes, all fully referenced (pp. 393-418), and some 30 pages of references (pp. 419-450), providing details of around 700 articles, papers and books cited in the endnotes. The endnotes are not indicated by superscript numbers, but on each occasion that a statement or quotation is cited the source can be checked by consulting the relevant page in the endnotes section at the back of the book. There are three ways of providing references, and this is not an uncommon method. A cursory check of my bookshelves gives, e.g., Daniel Schacter's well-referenced *The Seven Sins of Memory* using this method; also Loftus and Ketcham's *The Myth of Repressed Memory*. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
