ABSTRACT

An attempt was made to distinguish aspects of the shape of rock particles, and to discover by analysis
and empirical considerations the most appropriate parameters for describing these aspects. The shape
of a rock particle can be expressed in terms of three independent properties: form (overall shape),
roundness (large-scale smoothness) and surface texture. These form a three-tiered hierarchy of
observational scale, and of response to geological processes. Form can be represented by only two
independent measures from the three orthogonal axes normally measured. Of the four pairs of
independent measures commonly used for bivariate plots, the twosphericitylshape factor pairs appear
to be more efficient discriminators than simple axial ratios. Of the two, the most desirable pair is the
maximum projection sphericity and oblate-prolate index for both measures show an arithmetic normal
distribution for the range investigated. A measure of form that is independent of the three orthogonal
axes, and measures derived from them, is the angularity measure of Lees. Roundness has measures of
three types, those estimating average roundness of corners, those based on the sharpest corner, and a
measure of convexity in the particle outline. Although each type measures a different aspect, they are
not independent of each other. Only roundness from corners is considered in detail. As neither average
nor sharpest corner measures are inherently more objective or more quantitative, purpose should
determine which is more appropriate. Of the visual comparison charts for average roundness,
Krumbein’s appears best. The Modified Wentworth roundness is the most satisfactory for estimating
roundness from the sharpest corner. The Cailleux Roundness index should not be used because it
includes aspects of roundness and form. Shape is a difficult parameter to use for solving
sedimentological problems. Even the best of the commonly used procedures are limited by
observational subjectivity and a low discriminating power. Unambiguous interpretation of particle shape
in terms of source material and processes will always be made difficult by the large number of natural
variables and their interactions. For ancient sediments satisfactory results can be expected only from
carefully planned studies or rather unusual geological situations.

INTRODUCTION

There have been two main approaches to investigations of shape of rock particles. The experimental
approach, using tumbling devices or abrasion mills, allows observed changes to be related to starting
materials, processes and time. In the empirical approach, pebbles are measured in sedimentary
environments where the processes modifying pebble shape are believed to be known. The problems of
measurement have also been examined, notably by Griffiths and his co-workers (summarized in
Griffiths, 1967). As a result, there are many parameters for describing the shape of a pebble (Table 1)
but none that is universally accepted. Confusion appears to exist over what the various parameters of
shape actually measure and how they are related. This paper aims to clarify the relationships between
various aspects of shape and to find the most effective parameters to estimate them
THE MEANING OF ‘SHAPE’

Shape is the expression of external morphology, and for some is synonymous with form (Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary, 1955; Gary, McAfee & Wolf, 1972). However, Sneed & Folk (1958) used the term
form for overall particle shape, to be obtained from measurement of the three orthogonal axes, and
plotted on a form triangle. Used in this way ‘form’ clearly excludes other aspects of shape, such as
roundness. In contrast, Whalley (1972) saw farm as the appropriate term for external morphology, but
regarded shape as only one of several properties contributing to it. Shape may also have different
meanings for the same person. For example, Griffiths (1967) has two notions of shape, one being the
expression of external morphology (p. 1 lo), and the other ‘overall shape’ being related to the original
form of the particle (p. 111), and excluding roundness and surface texture. Further on (p. 113 et seq.) he
used sphericity to estimate shape (meaning overall shape presumably), though it is now clear that
sphericity contains only part of the information on overall shape. The two concepts of shape recognized
by Griffiths are maintained here, though terminology and usage are clarified. Shape is taken to include
every aspect of external morphology, that is, overall shape, roundness (=smoothness) and surface
texture, Form is used, following Sneed & Folk (1958), for the gross or overall shape of a particle, and is
independent of roundness and surface texture.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORM, ROUNDNESS AND SURFACE TEXTURE

Form, roundness and surface texture are essentially independent properties of shape because one can
vary widely without necessarily affecting the other two properties (Fig. 1). Wadell (1932, 1933) long ago
established the independence of sphericity and roundness, but since then sphericity has come to be
recognized as only one aspect of form (Aschenbrenner, 1956). Surface texture gives rise to occasional
practical difficulties in the measurement of shape, but it is often not considered in discussions of shape.
Whalley (1972) stated ‘surface texture can not be recognized in the projected outline of a particle. . . ’,
but this is not necessarily true for crystalline rock particles, for example. Surface texture bears the same
relationship to roundness as roundness does to form. These three properties can be distinguished at
least partly because of their different scales with respect to particle size, and this feature can also be
used to order them (Fig. 2). Form, the first order property, reflects variations in the proportions of the
particle; roundness, the second order property, reflects variations at the corners, that is, variations
superimposed on form.
Surface texture, the third order effect, is superimposed on the corners, and is also a property of particle
surfaces between corners. This hierarchical view of form, roundness and texture is supported by the
geological behaviour of rock particles. Changes in surface texture need not affect roundness.
Weathering may enhance the surface roughness of a pebble, though the well rounded corners remain
easily discernible. Striae, chatter marks and other features may also be acquired without changing the
roundness. This does not preclude the processes producing these textures also changing the roundness
over a long period of time. Roundness of rock particles, which normally increases through abrasion, can
change greatly without much effect on form. In contrast, a change in form inevitably affects both
roundness and surface texture, because fresh surfaces are exposed, and new corners appear, and a
change in roundness must affect surface texture, for each change results in a new surface.

PARAMETERS FOR THE ESTIMATION OF SHAPE

It is clear that no one parameter can be devised to characterize the shape of a rock particle, and indeed
it is easy to see how several might be needed to describe adequately each property that contributes to
shape. The precision or level of description (and hence number of parameters) will depend on the
problem being studied. There are, however, at least two properties that the parameters themselves
should have. (1) Each should represent an aspect that has some physical meaning, so that they can be
related to the processes that determine particle shape. (2) Each should represent a combination of
measurements from the same aspect of shape, that is, from the same hierarchical level. Various
parameters that estimate particular aspects of shape are discussed below, taking form and roundness in
turn. Surface texture will not be considered further, as numerical parameters are yet to be devised.

Form

Almost all parameters of particle form are based on the longest, shortest and intermediate orthogonal
axes (Table 2). Shape parameters should be independent of size, and therefore normally take the form
of ratios of the axes. From three axes only two independent ratios can be obtained, and this is the limit
for the number of independent parameters of form. Zingg’s (1935) diagram, in which I/L is plotted
against S/I, is an early and clear expression of this. The concept of sphericity, as Wadell (1932, 1933)
developed it, represents a different aspect of shape. Wadell argued well for the sphere as a reference
form, and considered that deviations were best represented by ratios of particle volume to the volume
of the circumscribing sphere (Table I). Although Wadell is best remembered for his demonstration that
sphericity and roundness are separate aspects of shape, his sphericity is sensitive to roundness as well
as form. Rounding the edges of a cube changes its Wadell sphericity but not its form. Therefore Wadell's
sphericity is not a parameter of form alone, but includes a pinch of roundness, making it a difficult
parameter to deal with. conceptually at least.

The differences between the procedures of Zingg and Wadell for describing particle shape were
substantially reduced by Krumbein (1941a), who derived an equation for estimating Wadell’s sphericity
from measurement of the three orthogonal axes of a particle. The principal assumption is that the rock
particle approximates an ellipsoid, Krumbein’s intercept sphericity being a function of the volume ratio
of the ellipsoid defined by the three axes to the circumscribing sphere. Whilst he regarded the intercept
sphericity as an approximation to true sphericity Krumbein (1941a, p. 65) had in fact created a
conceptually purer parameter than Wadell’s sphericity, for intercept sphericity measures form alone.
This was the time for the term equantcy, proposed recently by Teller (1976) for intercept sphericity, to
be introduced. Krumbein (1941a) recognized that lines of equal intercept sphericity plot as hyperbolic
curves on Zingg’s diagram (Fig. 3), but it was left to Aschenbrenner (1956) to recognize the need for a
parameter to describe variations in form for particles of equal sphericity. His shape factor F (Table 2) had
a range from 0 to infinity, but Williams (1965) has provided a transformation to give the shape factor a
range from $1 to -1 (Fig, 3). Aschenbrenner’s (1 956) main purpose, however, was to develop a measure
of sphericity that used a

reference form closer to real rock debris than an ellipsoid. He wanted a plane-sided figure and chose the
tetrakaidekahedron which he thought represented a better aproximation to natural particle shape. Also
it was relatively easy to handle mathematically. He took true sphericity to be the ratio of the surface
area of the rock particle to the surface area of the reference form, and derived a formula that allowed
sphericity to be calculated from the three orthogonal axes, using the tetrakaidekahedron as the
reference form. However, he noted that it is not possible to reach a sphericity of 1.0 unless the
reference form is an orthotetrakaidekahedron. Aschenbrenner arbitrarily and perhaps regrettably, set
the formula for his ‘working sphericity’ halfway between the two (Table 2). Although he could derive a
formula using the orthotetrakaidekahedron capable of yielding a sphericity of 1.0, the reference form
would itself have a ‘true sphericity’ of only 90.1. He appears not to have recognized that the difference
in sphericity values results from a difference in roundness of the reference forms. Sneed & Folk (1958)
suggested that the sphericity of a particle should express its behaviour in a fluid. Noting that particles
tend to orientate themselves with maximum projection area normal to the flow, they proposed a
maximum projection sphericity derived from the ratio of a sphere equal to the volume of the particle to
a sphere with the same maximum projection area. Sneed and Folk did not compare their measure with
other measures of sphericity, but simply presented the results of a major study on river pebbles using
the new measure. The widespread acceptance of their measure may reflect as much the usefulness of
the results as the power of their argument for the measure. The use of behaviouristic measures can lead
to problems in interpretation. A measure may be inappropriate when the behaviour assumed in deriving
it may be unimportant or different in the particular situation in which one wants to use the measure.
Should a measure appropriate for water-deposited pebbles be used for pebbles deposited from ice?
Perhaps the answer can be avoided by noting that the formula for Sneed and Folk‘s measure is very
close to that of intercept sphericity of Krurnbein (1941a), which it was designed to replace. The only
difference is that maximum projection sphericity uses the short axis as a reference, whereas intercept
sphericity uses the long axis (Table 2). Thus the two formulae appear to be equally valid measures of
sphericity from a conceptual point of view.

Sneed & Folk also proposed the use of a tri- The measures proposed by Folk and his students angular
diagram for plotting pebbles’ form, the allow the same pebble data to be plotted in two three poles
representing platy, elongated and com- different ways (Fig. 4): (1) sphericity against OP pact (equant)
pebbles (Fig. 4). Unlike most such index on orthogonal axes; (2) S/L against (L-I)/ diagrams where the
location of a point is determined (L- S) on triangular graph paper (the form diaby the proportions of the
three end members, the gram). location here is determined by the value of the apex In the equivalent
diagram using the procedures end member-compactness, measured by S/L, and of Zingg,
Aschenbrenner and Williams (Fig. 3), the a proportion (L-Z)/(L-S) measured parallel to same pebble data
can be plotted as: (1) Z/L against the base, which divides pebbles into three classes, S/Z; (2)
Aschenbrenner working sphericity against platy, bladed and elongated. The diagram empha- Williams
shape factor. sizes the fundamental character of these shapes, Each of the four plots derives from the
same and the way in which they converge on a single type, basic data, the lengths of the three principal
axes. compact. Therefore a trend in one diagram cannot be legitiThe relationship between the form
triangle and mately confirmed by a similar trend in another. maximum projection sphericity is similar to
that The only other common form index that uses the between Zingg’s diagram and intercept sphericity.
same three axial measurements is the flatness index For each maximum projection sphericity value of
Wentworth (1922a) (Table 2). The index was there is a unique curve on the form triangle. The adopted
by Cailleux (1945) and now his name is need for a complementary shape property was not commonly
associated with it. immediately recognized, but in 1970 Dobkins & As each pair of measures expresses
the same Folk offered the OP index (oblate-prolate index, information they are now compared, using
two Table 2), which was based on the ratio L -Z, criteria, namely: (1) their effectiveness in discriminatL-s
ing between different shapes, measured by the ratio though it also took into account degree of com- of
range to average standard deviation; and (2) pactness. The OP index ranges from - 03 to + 03, the
degree to which each measure follows a normal unlike most shape measures, which range from 0 or
distribution, extreme deviations making a measure -1 to +l. difficult to use for statistical tests.
 The data used for the evaluation are from pebbles in the range 8-64 mm, collected and organized into
sets of 20-30 pebbles. Each set represents a particular rock type and sedimentary environment. The
pebbles came from two areas, Hooker Glacier in the Southern Alps of New Zealand (20 sets and 597
pebbles), where the rock types distinguished were quartz schist and pelitic schist, and Taylor Valley,
Antarctica (29 sets and 706 pebbles), where the rock types sampled were granite, porphyry, vein quartz,
dolerite and basalt. The environments sampled in both areas include the subglacial (basal till),
superglacial (talus and stream deposits), icemarginal streams and proglacial streams. The total range of
mean values was found for each measure from both suites of pebbles, and divided by the average
standard deviation (Table 3). Whereas most measures show some difference in the average mean
between Hooker and Taylor samples, representing differences in average shape, the average standard
deviations are all very similar, indicating a similar natural variability in the measures regardless of their
mean value. The two pairs of sphericity and oblate-prolate measures have a similar high ratio of range to
standard deviation, showing that there is little to choose between them as effective discriminators of
form. Both are clearly better than either of the simpler ratios of axes. The value obtained from
Wentworth flatness is the highest of all, though the effectiveness of the measure is reduced by not
being paired with a complementary form measure. The shape of the frequency distribution for each
measure was examined by comparing the average skewness and kurtosis values for each suite of
pebbles (Fig. 5). Only two of the nine measures have a skewness value clearly different from 0.
Aschenbrenner’s sphericity is strongly negatively skewed, suggesting that the distribution may be
constrained by some practical upper limit of sphericity. Wentworth flatness showed, on average, a
strong positive skewness. Most measures have a peak that is broad compared with a normal distribution
(platykurtic) but the values are not extreme. Again Aschenbrenner sphericity and Wentworth flatness
stand out from the rest by showing a pointed (leptokurtic) frequency distribution, and they have a larger
variability in kurtosis values than the other measures. In every case for both skewness and kurtosis there
is no significant difference in the mean value from each suite of pebbles, suggesting that the features of
the frequency distributions described above are of a general nature. Of the measures examined
therefore, maximum projection sphericity and oblate prolate index are the most satisfactory for
describing form, in that they both approximate the normal distribution, and are relatively efficient
discriminators. The measures reviewed above are all based on three orthogonal axes, and are not
satisfactory discriminators of some forms. In particular they do not separate particles with triangular,
rectangular and pentagonal cross-sections. Perhaps this is why Holmes (1 960) used verbally defined
categories instead of ratio scale measures for describing pebbles from Pleistocene till. The forms above
can clearly be distinguished on the number of sides (or angles). This aspect of shape seems therefore to
be an aspect of form, and not roundness, at least when the number of sides is small. Rounding of the
 corners can vary without affecting the number of sides, though not beyond the point when an entire
side is lost. Several practical problems not yet overcome are: (1) being consistent in deciding on the
number of (planar) sides for many rock particles with irregular forms; (2) distinguishing the number of
sides objectively on particles with a large number of sides and corners; and (3) resolving planar sides on
rounded particles. A measure that takes some account of this aspect of form is that of Lees (1964), who
proposed the following measure for the degree of angularity:

with a range from 0-co where a~ is the angle of each corner and XQ is the distance of the corner from
the centre of the maximum inscribed circle (radius ri) for each of the three sections through the long,
intermediate and short axes of the rock particle. Defined this way angularity is increased by (1) increase
in acuteness of the corners; (2) increase in number of corners; (3) increase in relative distance of corners
from the centre of the particle. Although (1) and (2) are clearly aspects of form (the angle of a corner
being geometrically independent of its roundness), (3) includes elements of both form and roundness,
for particles with rounded corners will have a lower x/r ratio than particles with sharp corners but the
same acuteness of angle and number of corners (Fig. 6). For angularity to be a measure of form alone,
the distance x', and not x, should be measured. Roundness The claim that roundness of rock particles is
a property independent of sphericity was first made by Wadell (1932), and was immediately attacked by
Wentworth (1933). Wentworth argued that the distinction defied common usage of the terms, on the
grounds that roundness is a property best displayed by a sphere. Wadell (1933) responded with points
from both the dictionary and common usage, supporting his use of roundness, which incorporated a
sense of smoothness or lack of angularity. He observed that whilst roundness is an essential property of
a sphere many other forms could be equally well rounded. Wadell's view prevailed. Measurement of
roundness has always posed difficulties quite different from those of form measurement. Although
roundness is clearly a three-dimensional (3D) property all methods of measuring roundness to date have
begun with 2D

projections of the particle. A truly 3D roundness measure would involve fitting 3D reference surfaces
(such as spheres of varying radii) to all corners on the pebble surface. Wadell (1932) believed that
measurement of roundness from a 2D projection did not cause serious bias, and everyone since has
implicitly agreed, though perhaps largely because of the impracticality of measuring true 3D roundness.
Wadell’s procedure, as well as his concept of roundness, has survived with little change. The key to it is
the corner, which he defined as ‘every such part of the outline of an area (projection area) which has a
radius of curvature equal to or less than the radius of curvature of the maximum inscribed circle of the
same area’. Each corner of the maximum projection outline is measured with a template of concentric
circles of known diameter by finding the largest circle that will fit. Most pebbles have between two and
six corners, as defined above; the diameters are averaged and divided by the maximum inscribed circle
to provide a measure of average roundness (Table 4). Swan (1974) has suggested that the limitation on
the size of corners was a matter of convenience to get a measure that would not exceed 1.0, but
Wadell’s limitation on what constitutes a corner is essential for separating the corners from the rest of
the particle outline. If the limit were a straight part of the outline, all pebbles with convex outlines
would consist entirely of corners, some of which would have a radius of curvature of almost infinite size.
 This would certainly be out of keeping with the common notion of a corner. Because of the time-
consuming nature of the procedure, Krumbein (1941a) prepared a set of pebble images of
predetermined Wadell roundness from 0.1 in steps of 0.1 to 0.9 for faster roundness determination. The
price of faster measurement is the higher subjectivity of the values obtained, because an entire image is
being compared, rather than a set of single corners one at a time. Another source of error derives from
Krumbein’s images

having corners all of similar curvature, whereas many natural pebbles have corners with a range of
curvatures. This is particularly evident in the three classes of least rounded pebbles. However, as long as
the operator compares corners, and not the whole shape, the roundness values obtained should be as
accurate as other limitations of the procedure will allow (Krumbein, 1941a, p. 72). Another pebble
comparison chart developed from the idea that particle roundness can best be described as a series of
five stages of development, i.e. from angular to very rounded, each stage being characterized by
different features (Russell & Taylor, 1937). They transformed the data from ordinal to ratio scale by
keying the stage boundaries to Wadell’s average roundness values, and since then further modifications
have been made. Pettijohn (1949) noted that by moving stage boundaries slightly the intervals
represented a geometric progression. Powers (1953) added another class (very angular), and Folk
(1955), noting the geometric progression in interval size, proposed a logarithmic transformation to give
a roundness scale from 1 to 6 (the rho scale). However, it is difficult to see how distinct natural classes of
rounding can develop from continuous or even episodic abrasion. If this point is conceded and it is
agreed that roundness forms a continuum, then the most useful comparison chart will be the one with
the largest number of classes, as long as adjacent classes can be distinguished. This makes Krumbein’s
chart the most satisfactory of those available, although the verbal classes of roundness are still useful
for purposes of discussion. The importance of the sharpest point on the outline of a particle was first
recognized by Wentworth (1919), who proposed as a measure of shape the ratio of the diameter of
curvature of the sharpest corner to the diameter of the particle through that point (not the longest
diameter, as stated by Dobkins & Folk, 1970, among others). He later changed the divisor to the average
of the long and short diameter of the particle in the plane of projection (Wentworth, 1922b). Cailleux
(1947) proposed a similar measure of roundness, namely the diameter of the sharpest corner to the
longest diameter of the particle(1ongaxis). This measure has beencriticized by Kuenen (1956), Dobkins
&Folk (1970), Swan (1974) and Folk (1977), because it confuses both roundness and form in the same
measure. It is difficult to understand the continued use of Cailleux’s measure (e.g. Briggs, 1977) in the
 face of this substantial objection. Kuenen modified the Cailleux formula by replacing the long axis with
the intermediate axis, whereas Dobkins and Folk suggested using the largest inscribed circle, and Swan
proposed a modification of the Dobkins and Folk procedure by averaging the diameters for the two
sharpest corners (Table 4). A concept of roundness independent of the character of corners was
proposed by SzadeczkyKardoss in 1933 (see Krumbein & Pettijohn, 1938; Miiller, 1967). The measure, p,
is the percentage of convex parts along the circumference of a rock particle, and is obtained from an
enlarged image using a measuring wheel, or by measuring the total angular distance about the centre of
the inscribed circle subtended by convex parts of the circumference. A complementary measure of
angularity (sum of angles subtended by plane sides 360”) was proposed independently about this time
by Fischer (see Krumbein & Pettijohn, 1938). In contrast to Wadell’s roundness, which estimates degree
of curvature, p compares the direction or sense of curvature. A visual comparison chart of images with
values in the range 1690% has been prepared by Sames (1 966). However, roundness measured in this
way is rarely reported in the English-language literature. In practice, it is difficult to locate the boundary
between convex, planar and concave segments of the circumference of the particle because they grade
into each other. Miiller (1967) reported a precision of 3%, but this relates only to measurement and
appears not to take account of differences in locating the limits of convex segments. Each of the three
groups of measurements in Table 4 estimates a different aspect of roundness. Roundness estimated
from corners has a clearer physical meaning than that based on convexity of the outline, and while the
validity of the latter approach is not denied, it is not considered further here. Of the others only Wadell’s
procedure measures average roundness, and of the various charts available for visual estimation
Krumbein’s (1941a) is preferred. Of those measures estimating roundness from the sharpest corner, the
Modified Wentworth roundness (Dobkins & Folk, 1970) is the most desirable. It uses as denominator a
length (diameter of the largest inscribed circle) that can be taken at the same time as that of the
sharpest corner from the image of the rock particle, whatever its scale. Swan’s (1974) modification of
the measure (by averaging the two sharpest points), is unsatisfactory because it yields a value
somewhere between the least and the average roundness. If one is going to measure more than the one
sharpest corner one might as well measure the total of four or five needed to calculate Wadell
sphericity, a long established measure with a clear meaning. Dobkins and Folk (1970) implied that the
Modified Wentworth roundness is more objective and quantitative than any other procedure for
measuring roundness, including Wadell’s, but in both respects it is no better and no worse. The problem
of recognizing corners (one of their objections) is inherent in both methods, and it is in fact most vexing
for small angular coarse-grained particles, where it may be difficult to distinguish the sharpest corner
from a textural feature. Dobkins & Folk (1970, p. 1170) argued that the sharpest corner provided the
best measure of roundness, because it ‘best reflects the amount of rounding going on in the latest
environment.’ This is a good point for river pebbles, but in other situations, for example, beneath
glaciers, the level of rounding attained, rather than roundness change since last breakage, may be of
most interest. Wadell roundness using Krumbein’s visual comparison chart is now compared with
Modified Wentworth roundness, again using the glacial and fluvioglacial pebbles from Hooker Valley and
Taylor Valley (p. 297). The discriminating power of each measure is about the same (Table 5). However,
whereas the average skewness and kurtosis values of the Wadell-Krumbein measures are approximately
normally distributed, values for the Wentworth measures show them to be consistently positively
skewed, with kurtosis highly variable. This is not so much a feature of the measure, but of the restricted
range in roundness of the particles, close to the lower bound of the measure. The distribution of
Modified Wentworth roundness values for beach and river pebbles, which are typically in the range
 0.25-0.80, is approximately normal (Folk, 1972). The data presented here suggest that the measure
should be used with care where roundness values are low.

CONCLUSIONS

Difficulties in using aspects of shape as geological evidence remain considerable. Even the best of the
commonly used procedures have their limitations for both description and hypothesis testing because
their discriminating power is low compared with most other sedimentological procedures (e.g.
measurement of size, composition, orientation). In addition, each measure depends at some point on
subjective assessment, whether it be the location of the three orthogonal axes or the fitting of arcs to
particle outlines. Further limitation arises from the observation that shape may be determined by a large
number of natural variables interacting in different ways (Krumbein, 1941 b; Kuenen, 1956), but can be
assessed so far by only three independent measures of form (sphericity, oblate-prolate index,
angularity) and one independent measure of roundness (all three types discussed above are related).
The seductive ease with which measurements of form and roundness can be made is in contrast to the
difficulties encountered in ascribing a geological meaning to them. Causal relationships between aspects
of shape and the natural variables that lead to them can be established only where the variables are
controlled, where the operator error can be assessed and where a large number of measurements can
be made (to narrow the confidence interval on mean values). Confidence in the inferences made about
ancient sediments on the basis of particle shape studies must also depend to a considerable degree on
independent knowledge of the natural variables (rock type, particle size, flow direction, character of
flow). Therefore unambiguous interpretations from shape studies of ancient sediments can be expected
only from carefully planned studies of rather unusual geological situations.