of the value of this quantity, including those with SHARC-II 2$\sigma$ angular diameters $\leq 20$. Young et al. present their diameters at the 3$\sigma$ contours instead of the 2$\sigma$ contours, but since the sizes derived from these observations will be larger at the 2$\sigma$ contours than the 3$\sigma$ contours, this difference cannot explain the discrepancy.

One possible explanation for the difference in core sizes between these two surveys is that our observations may not go deep enough to detect the full extent of the core. If so, the source size would increase with integration time, since more of the extended emission would be detected as the signal-to-noise ratio increased. As stated in §\[subobs\], the integrations on each core were separated into blocks of either five or ten minutes. Thus, to test this possibility, Figure \[sizesfig\] shows the angular diameter at the 2$\sigma$ contours as a function of integration time for a randomly selected subset of the 350 [$\mu$m]{} sources.

Some of the sources show slight rises in their 2$\sigma$ angular diameters as the integration time increases, but the trend does not continue past approximately 50 minutes of integration (IRAM 04191+1522 and BOLO68 being the best examples). To consider a few 