^{page 135 note 1} There is, however, some disturbance in the order of the Demosthenes entries.

^{page 135 note 2} The Dem. and Aeschin. λέξεις—together with a list of 69 Attic words which are found at the end of the Dem. list, have no lemmata, and for the most part do not occur in Dem.—were published in B.C.H. i (1877), pp. 1–16 and 137–55, with notes by Kontos, pp. 177–81, and Riemann, 183–94. The Thuc. λέξεις were published in R. de Phil. N.s. I (1877), pp. 182–5.

^{page 135 note 3} I have discussed the significance of iv. 43. 3 and the relation of Pat. Th. to E (Cod. Pal. 252) in C.Q. 1954, p. 80.

^{page 136 note 1} It should also be noted that where Lucian, loc. cit., used ἐργασία Paus. might well have used ιέχνη; cf. v. 25. 12 .

^{page 136 note 2} Stephanus attributes to Hellanicus (Λεσβιακά) the explanation which associates Ἀπόλλων Μαλόεις with the daughter of Teiresias.

^{page 136 note 3} Compare also the όροδόιου λέξεις of Cod. Reg. Paris. 345 ff., 165^v–167^r, and, in Latin, the relation of the excerpts from a Juvenal commentary in Cod. Sangall. 870, pp. 31–37 to the full commentary, ibid., pp. 40–326.

^{page 137 note 1} For the relation between the Patmos Scholia and the Scholia of ABCFM see now Luschnat, O., Philologus, xcviii (1954), pp. 31 ffGoogle Scholar.