Once again, we agree with some of the viewpoints put forward by Thompson and others ( 1977). For example, we agree that the ice flow in the "Byrd" area must be of quite unusual character if the layer thicknesses claimed were true. Also we agree that detection of seasonal variations in the microparticle concentration in an ice core is not just a matter of increasing the sampling frequ ency. The appropriate sampling frequ ency must in any given case depend upon the signal-to-noise ratio. Using the minimum of 3 or 4 samples per annual layer is justified only in high accumulation areas with particularly favourable wind, fall-out and d eposition conditions.In our opinion, the authors' new figure I (above) suggests that this does not hold true for the "Byrd" area. In fact, it stresses the authors' statement that "conclusive proof is lacking that the short-period variations in micropartide concentration are annual". We feel this problem should b e solved prior to discussing flow patterns or time scales based on any interpretation of dust profiles. It is true that there is some degree of similarity between the dust and 8( IB O ) variations in (according to Johnsen and others, 1972 ) a 15500 year old increm ent (Thompson and others, 1975, fig. I ), but it is difficult to accept as "strong presumptive evidence", because the 8 oscillation is short and obviously atypical, while the dust profile is disturbed by numerous volcanic ash bands. Furthermore, Marshall ( 1962 ) suggested seasonal dust variations at 2 I m d epth, but he analysed only 0.65 m of firn comprising two annual layers as determined by visual stratigraphy observations. And, tru e enough, if seasonal dust variations are recognizable at Pole of Relative Inaccessibility, they may also b e so at "Byrd" that has twice as much accumulation; on the other hand, the meteorological regimes at the two stations are quite different , and midway between them, at the South Pole, "there are difficulties in determining the annual layering" (Thompson and others, 1975) , may be because the fall-out in this area (and at "Byrd"?) simply does not vary r egularly with the seasons in an interpretable way.H ence, we consider a feasibility study as particularly important in areas like "Byrd", closer to active volcanoes than to potential sources of continental dust. Marshall's excellent pilot study should be followed up by measuring a detailed dust-concentration profile through th e upper firn from the surface down to strata that can b e safely dated, e.g. by identification of total ~-activity reference horizons. This is undoubtedly what Thompson and others (1975) have in mind, when stating on p. 441: "In the 1973-74 Antarctic field season one of us (L.C.T.) collected samples for microparticle analysis from areas near 'Byrd' station where the snow stratigraphy and chronology are well known". In several respects these analyses will render much more information than the new figure I above.Finally, a short remark about matching the Camp Century and "Byrd" time scales. The technique used ...