451:20 The other authorities concur in this statement; thus furnishing an additional instance of one caste proceeding from another. No reason is assigned: the commentator says it was from some cause.

451:21 Durbhakshaya: Váyu. Urukshat: Matsya. Duritakshaya: Bhágavata.

451:22 Trayyáruńi, Pushkaráruńi, Kavi; all became Brahmans: ### Matsya: and there were three chief branches of the Kávyas, or descendants of Kavi; ### Gargas, Sankritis, and Kávyas. Ibid.

451:23 In the Mahábhárata, Suhotra is the son of Bhúmanyu; and in one place the father of Ajamíd́ha, &c., and in another of Hastin. The Bráhma P. in some degree, and the Hari Vanśa in a still greater, have made most extraordinary confusion in the instance of this name. In our text and in all the best authorities we have three Suhotras, perfectly distinct: 1. Suhotra great-grandson of Amávasu, father of Jahnu, and ancestor of Viswámitra and the Kauśikas (see p. 308); 2. Suhotra son of Kshatravriddha, and grandson of Ayus, and progenitor of the race of Káśí kings (p. 406); and 3. Suhotra the son of Vrihatkshatra, grandson of Vitatha, and parent of Hastin. In the two blundering compilations mentioned, we have, first (Hari V. c. 20), a Suhotra son of Vrihatkshatra, of the race of Puru; his descent is not given, but, from the names which follow Suhotra, the dynasty is that of our present text: secondly (Hari V. c. 27), Suhotra son of Kánchana, of the line of Amávasu, and father of Jahnu, &c.: thirdly (Hari V. c. 29), Suhotra the son of Kshatravriddha, and progenitor of the Káśí kings: fourthly (Hari V. 32), we have the first and third of these personages confounded; Suhotra is made the son of Vitatha, and progenitor of the Káśí kings, the dynasty of whom is repeated; thus connecting them with the line of Puru instead of Áyus, in opposition to all authority. Again, we have a notable piece of confusion, and Suhotra the son of Vitatha is made the father of Vrihat, the father of the three princes who in our text and in the Hari V. (c. 20) are the sons of Hastin; and amongst whom Ajamíd́ha is made the father of Jahnu, and ancestor of the Kauśikas, instead of being, as in c. 27, and as every where else, of the family of Amávasu. The source of all this confusion is obvious. The compilers extracted all the authentic traditions accurately enough, but, puzzled by the identity of name, they have also p. 452 mixed the different accounts together, and caused very absurd and needless perplexity. It is quite clear also that the Hari Vanua does not deserve the pains taken, and taken fruitlessly, by Mr. Hamilton and M. Langlois to reduce it to consistency. It is of no weight whatever as an authority for the dynasties of kings, although it furnishes some particular details, which it has picked up possibly from authentic sources not now available.