Tastes differ, and not all these eleven readings of Class I may be errors.  Kukula, in the most recent Teubner edition (1912), accepts three of them (60, 15; 62, 6; 65, 15), and Merrill, in his forthcoming edition, five (60, 15; 61, 12; 62, 6; 65, 12; 65, 15).  Personally I could be reconciled to them all with the exception of the very two which Aldus could not admit—­62, 23 and 64, 3; in both places he had the early editions to fall back on.  However, I should concur with Merrill and Kukula in preferring the reading of the other classes in 62, 16 and 65, 24.  In 65, 11 I would emend to alii quidam minoris sed tamen numeri; if this is the right reading, _{Pi}BF_ agree in the easy error of quidem for quidam, and MVD in another easy error, minores for minoris—­the parent manuscript of MV further changed tamen numeri to tam innumeri.  Whatever the final judgment, here are five cases in which all recent editors would attribute error to Class I; in the remaining six cases the manuscripts of Class I either agree in error or avoid the error of Class II—­surely, then, _{Pi}_ is not of the latter class.  There are six other significant errors of MV in the whole passage, no one of which appears in _{Pi}_:  61, 15 si non] sint MV; 62, 6 mira illis] mirabilis MV; 62, 11 lotus] illic MV; cibum] cibos MV; 62, 25 fuit—­64, 12 potes] om. MV; 66, 12 amatus] est amatus MV.  Once the first hand in _{Pi}_ agrees with V in an error easily committed independently:  61, 12 ordinata] ORDINATA, DI ss. m. 2 _{Pi}_ ornata V.

_{Pi}_, then, and MV have descended from the archetype by different routes.  With Class III, the Verona branch of Class II, _{Pi}_ clearly has no close association.

But the evidence for allying _{Pi}_ with B and F, the manuscripts of Class I, is by no means exhausted.  In 61, 14, BFux have the erroneous emendation, which Budaeus includes among his variants, of serua for sera.  A glance at _{Pi}_ shows its apparent origin.  The first hand has SERA correctly; the second hand writes U above the line.[32] If the second hand is solely responsible for the attempt at improvement here, and is not reproducing a variant in the parent manuscript of _{Pi}_, then BF must descend directly from _{Pi}_.  The following instances point in the same direction:  61, 21 considit] considet BF. _{Pi}_ has CONSIDIT by the first hand, the second hand changing the second I to a capital E.[33] In 65, 5, however, RESIDIT is not thus changed in _{Pi}_, and perhaps for this very reason is retained by the careful scribe of B; F, which has a slight tendency to emend, has, with G, residet. 63, 9 praestat amat me] praestatam ad me B.  Here the letters of the scriptura continua in _{Pi}_ are faded and blurred; the error of B