This article updates Karen May’s earlier 2012 hypothesis (Could Captain Scott have been saved? Revisiting Scott’s last expedition). In this revised hypothesis, Cecil Meares, not Surgeon E. L. Atkinson, originated the unsubstantiated statement that “Strict injunctions had been given by Scott that the dogs should not be risked in any way.” This hypothesis incorporates new information uncovered since 2012, specifically Meares’ misrepresentations during the Terra Nova expedition; Atkinson’s 1911 journal entries; Atkinson’s 1919 allegation that Meares had “disobeyed orders”; and Tryggve Gran’s “The Race for the South Pole between Scott and Amundsen”, a 1945/post-1945 document that appears to have been Roland Huntford’s source for anecdotes in Huntford’s 1979 Scott–Amundsen biography. The article gives a proposed chronology for how Meares’ early misrepresentations and Gran’s later misunderstandings influenced the decisions, and later presentations, of the Terra Nova expedition.

中文翻译：

---

“狗不应该冒险的严格禁令”：对斯科特最后一次探险的叙述中这一轶事和其他轶事的修正假设

本文更新了 Karen May 2012 年早些时候的假设（斯科特船长能得救吗？重温斯科特的最后一次探险）。在这个修改后的假设中，Cecil Meares 而非外科医生 EL Atkinson 提出了未经证实的声明：“Scott 已发出严格的禁令，即不应以任何方式冒险让狗冒险。” 这一假设包含了自 2012 年以来发现的新信息，特别是 Meares 在特拉诺瓦远征; 阿特金森 1911 年的日记；阿特金森 1919 年关于米尔斯“不服从命令”的指控；以及 Tryggve Gran 的“斯科特和阿蒙森之间的南极竞赛”，这是一份 1945 年/1945 年后的文件，似乎是罗兰·亨特福德在 1979 年的斯科特-阿蒙森传记中的轶事来源。这篇文章给出了一个拟议的年表，说明 Meares 早期的失实陈述和 Gran 后来的误解如何影响了特拉诺瓦远征。