¹ One fragment (6) is lost: the remaining seventeen (21–31, 35, 39–43) were illustrated in West’s article in Melropolitan Museum Studies, III, 174 ff. As that article is not widely accessible in this country, I cannot but regret that the photographs there published have not been reproduced in the book before us : they would have materially increased its usefulness without adding unduly to its bulk or cost.

² These do not include IG. I², 151, which, to judge by the character of the script, may possibly come from the latter part of the inscription.

³ On p. 93 we must read [‘Aλονήσ]ιο[ι] and on p. 97 Na;ξ#x03B9;ἄταιπιρὰMύριναν and, probably, Οθώριοι (cf. θέστωρος, Πίλωρος, both in Thrace); What of the [Mυ]γισσης of SEG. v, 4. IV. 19 ?

⁴ For μηδεμίν (pp. 45, 104) read μηδεμιȏ, for πρήθονσα (p. 107) πλήθονσα, for πορενθήσωνται (p. 106) πορενθήσονται (as on p. 105).

⁵ On p. 19 ‘L. Franz’ should be ‘J. Franz’, and 34 should be added to the fragments removed from IG. I², 64 ; on p. 43 ‘O. Müller’ should be ‘I. von Müller’

⁶ Why should 8 rather than 13 talents be restored in IG. I², 64 as the assessment of Antandrus (p. 81)?