specific examples, Young et al. (2006) derive a 3$\sigma$ diameter at 850 [$\mu$m]{} of 59 for IRAM 04191+1522, while we derive a 2$\sigma$ diameter at 350 [$\mu$m]{} of 28. As seen in Figure \[sizesfig\], integrating beyond about 50 minutes does not increase the size of this source. As another example, Young et al. derive a 3$\sigma$ diameter at 850 [$\mu$m]{} of 111 for L1521F, while we derive a 2$\sigma$ diameter at 350 [$\mu$m]{} of 34. The 350 [$\mu$m]{} 2$\sigma$ diameter increases between 10 and 20 minutes of integration, but beyond that it does not increase with integration time. Furthermore, many of the sources that show little to no change in their 2$\sigma$ angular diameters as the integration time increases do in fact have decreasing 1$\sigma$ RMS values as integration time increases (B335, Bern 48, and L1521F being good examples). Thus, in general, we conclude that the discrepancy in source sizes cannot simply be attributed to the SHARC-II observations not going deep enough to detect the more extended emission seen in the SCUBA data. An alternative explanation is thus required.

Two other possibilities may explain this discrepancy. The first possibility is the fact that observations of low-mass cores at 350 [$\mu$m]{} 