^{page 241 note 1} E.g. in the two passages, I. 57, III. 78, where I noted in my February article an important difference between ω and β, there is none, but Conington had failed to note ω's reading.

^{page 247 note 1} Or perhaps ω and β may be (so to speak) brothers; I was inclined to think this impossible, for where ω has been corrected β has almost invariably used the correction. But Mr. W. M. Lindsay suggests to me that this may be so explained: a reviser corrected ω where the scribe had departed from the archetype; β was itself copied from that archetype, and so does not reproduce ω's errors. If so ω is a very exact but unintelligent β an intelligent copy of the same MS.

^{page 247 note 1} It is possible that this Τοεξιϲ was originally a corruption of .