2001A&A...379..917T

For the often-studied ``SMR'' giant µ Leo, Smith & Ruck (2000A&A...356..570S) have recently found that [Fe/H]~+0.3dex. Their conclusion is tested here in a ``statistical'' paradigm, in which statistical principles are used to select published high-dispersion µ Leo data and assign error bars to them. When data from Smith & Ruck and from Takeda et al. (1998PASJ...50...97T) are added to a data base compiled in 1999, it is found that conclusions from an earlier analysis (Taylor, 1999A&A...344..655T) are essentially unchanged: the mean value of [Fe/H]~+0.23±0.025dex, and values ≤+0.2dex are not clearly ruled out at 95% confidence. In addition, the hypothesis that [Fe/H]≥+0.3dex which emerges from the Smith-Ruck analysis is formally rejected at 98% confidence. The ``default paradigm'' which is commonly used to assess µ Leo data is also considered. The basic characteristics of that paradigm continue to be a) unexplained exclusion of statistical analysis, b) inadequately explained deletions from an [Fe/H] data base containing accordant data, and c) an undefended convention that µ Leo is to have a metallicity of about +0.3dex or higher. As a result, it seems fair to describe the Smith-Ruck application and other applications of the default paradigm as invalid methods of inference from the data.