In his article in this issue, R. Tybout has some harsh words (38-39) for an article by S. Yerkes published in JRA 13. T.'s reaction seems to involve not so much a scholarly disagreement as a major misunderstanding of Yerkes' paper. I would like to offer a brief corrective to his comments.

T. seems under the impression that the identification of Vitruvius' monstra is the main — or only — point of Yerkes' essay. This is probably because of the title. The paper is a radically reduced presentation of the argument of the author's master's thesis which was entitled “Neo-Attic motifs in Roman painting”. And the identification of some of the sources for the monstra — as motifs in much earlier Roman marble furnishings — is actually the main thrust of her argument. Her original title for the article also included a reference to “neo-Attic motifs” but that was omitted by the editor after it was submitted to JRA. T. is dismayed that Yerkes fails to cite the chapter on Vitruvius 7.5.3 ff. in W. Ehrhardt's monograph Stilgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (T. 1, n.l). Now, Yerkes is well aware of this work and cites it in her thesis, together with another paper Ehrhardt published on “Vitruv und die zeitgenössische Wandmalerei” in KJb 1991. So she could — and perhaps should — have included Ehrhardt's work in her notes, as T. suggests; perhaps including fuller references to other past scholarship too. But T. goes on to make the extraordinary claim (38 n.30) that Ehrhardt's chapter renders Yerkes' observations “largely superfluous”. I cannot follow T. here, for Ehrhardt's essay actually has a quite different aim and focus; and the differences are worth underlining.