emendation of much importance has been overlooked.
In the first edition I admitted into the text conjectural emendations of my own in the following passages:—iii. 3: xix. 3: xxiii. 1: xxiv. 10: xxv. 4: xxv. 14: xxv. 16. Of these, one or two appear to have carried general conviction (in particular, xxiii. l): two are now withdrawn,—iii. 3 and xxv. 14, the latter in favour of <οἱονοῠν> (Tucker).
In the first edition, moreover, I bracketed, in a certain number of passages, words which I regarded as glosses that had crept into the text, viz.:—iii. 1: vi. 18: xvii. 1: xvii. 5. In vi. 18 I now give Gomperz's correction τῶν λεγομένων, for the bracketed words τῶν μὲν λόγων of the MSS., and in xvii. 5 Bywater's conjecture ὅτι αὑτός for [τινὰς αὐτός].
There remains a conjecture which I previously relegated to the notes, but which I now take into the text with some confidence. It has had the good fortune to win the approval of many scholars, including the distinguished names of Professor Susemihl and Professor Tyrrell. I refer to οὐ (οὕτω MSS.) τὰ τυχόντα ὀνόματα in ix. 5. 1451 b 13, where the Arabic has 'names not given at random' For the copyist's error cf. ix. 2. 1451 a 36, where Ac has οὕτω, though οὐ τὸ rightly appears in the 'apographa': and for
