> I suspect the wilder parts of Scotland are actually far less populated than they used to be - the original populations of many areas being systematically remo

> I suspect the wilder parts of Scotland are actually far less populated than they used to be - the original populations of many areas being systematically removed by landowners in favour of sheep or deer: Fair enough point on population. But I still believe that resources and even interest in recording such things may not have existed then. In the 1700's the landowner was either likely well educated and living elsewhere, or poor and not able to read and write. The people spending the majority of their time in remote areas probably didn't have the resources to keep accurate records. My point is, we are treating this really old data as if it is a ground truth. We need to take greater care.