Some hectares are oval no doubt. I bet the Science article meant area, not shape.
> From: Martin Vlietstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:53:13 +0100 > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Subject: [USMA:41094] RE: Square hectares > > Is the term "square hectare" really redundant? Surely a piece of land that > is 100 m by 100 m can be descried as a "square hectare"? After all, it is a > square. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of James Frysinger > Sent: 14 June 2008 16:27 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:41089] Square hectares > > The June 06 issue of Science contains a fascinating series of articles > written by Andrew Lawler on the Indus people. I spotted a glitch in the > first one that stimulated the following note to the author, with copy to > the editors at Science. > > Jim > > Dear Mr. Lawler, > > I am reading your fascinating article, "Boring no More", on the Indus > people and I have just come across a jarring phrase. You speak of the > Mohenjo Daro covering "at least 200 square hectares". "Square hectares" > is redundant, as would be "cubic liters". The former is a unit of area > and the latter a unit of volume. > > Certainly this must have been just a "slip of the pen". I am rather > amazed that a technical editor at Science did not catch this error. > > Otherwise, thank you very much for your fascinating articles in this > series. I look forward to learning more about these ancient people and > their civilization as I read your articles. > > -- > James R. Frysinger > 632 Stony Point Mountain Road > Doyle, TN 38559-3030 > > (H) 931.657.3107 > (C) 931.212.0267 >
