V, 85, 6. âsíñkantîh (Aufr. p. 391) instead of âsiñkántîh (M. M. vol. iii, p. 560) is not supported either by MSS. or by grammar, as siñk belongs to the Tud-class. On the same grounds isháyantah, VI, 16, 27 (M. M. vol. iii, p. 638), ought not to have been changed to ishayántah (Aufr. p. 408), nor VI, 24, 7, avakarsáyanti (Ni. M. vol. iii, p. 687) into avakársayanti (Aufr. p. 418).

VI,. 46, 10, read girvanas (M. M. vol. iii, p. 763) instead of gírvanas (Aufr. p. 435).

VI, 60, 10. krinoti (Aufr. p. 450) instead of krinóti (M. M. vol. iii, p. 839) is wrong.

VII, 40, 4. aryamâ´ â´pah (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 35), in the Pada instead of aryamâ´ ápah (M. M. vol. iv, p. 81) is wrong.

VII, 51, 1. âdityânâ´m (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 40) instead of âdityâ´nâm (M. M. vol. iv, p. 103) is wrong.

VII, 64, 2. ilâ´m (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 50) instead of ílâm (M. M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gopâh in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopâ.

VII, 66, 5. yó (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atipíprati.

VII, 72, 3. In abudhran Professor Aufrecht has properly altered the wrong spelling abudhnan; and, as far as the authority of the best MSS. is concerned (S 1, S 2, S 3), he is also right in putting a final n, although Professor Bollensen prefers the dental n; (Zeitschrift der D. M. G., vol. xxii, p. 599.) The fact is that Vedic MSS. use the Anusvâra dot for final nasals before all class-letters, and leave it to us to interpret that dot according to the letter which follows. Before I felt quite certain on this point, I have in several cases retained the dot, as given by the MSS., instead of changing it, as I ought to have done according to my system of writing Devânagarî, into the corresponding nasal, provided it represents an original n. In I, 71, 1, S 2, S 3 have the dot in agushran, but S 1 has dental n. In IX, 87, 5, asrigran has the dot; i. e. S 1 has the dot, and nkh, dental n joined to kh; S 2 has nkh without the dot before the n; S 3 has the dot, and then kh. In IV, 24, 6, the spelling of the Samhitâ ávivenam tám would leave it doubtful whether we ought to read ávivenan tám or ávivenam tám; S 1 and S 3 read ávivenam tám, but S 2 has ávivenan tám; P 2 has ávi-venan tám, and P 1 had the same originally, though a later hand changed it to ávi-venam tám. In IV, 25, 3, on the contrary, S 1 and S 3 write ávivenam; S 2, ávivenam; P i and P 2, ávi-venam. What is intended is clear enough, viz. ávi-venan in IV, 24, 6; ávi-venam in IV, 25, 3. [In the new edition ávivenam has been left in both passages.]

VII, 73 1. asvinâ (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 56) instead of asvínâ (M. M. vol. iv, p. 176) is wrong. On the same page, dhíshnye, VII, 72, 3, should have the accent on the first syllable.

VII, 77, 1. In this verse, which has been so often discussed