14. The restricted use of abbreviations. Besides B· and Q· and such suspensions as occur in classical inscriptions only the contracted forms of the _Nomina Sacra_ are found. 15. Omission of _M_ and _N_ allowed only at the end of a line, the omission being marked by means of a simple horizontal line (somewhat hooked at each end) placed above the line after the final vowel and not directly over it as in later uncial manuscripts. 16. Absence of nearly all punctuation. 17. The use of {Symbol: infra?} in the text where an omission has occurred, and {Symbol: supra?} _after_ the supplied omission in the lower margin, or the same symbols reversed if the supplement is entered in the upper margin. If we now turn to the Morgan Pliny we observe that it lacks a number of the characteristics enumerated above as belonging to the oldest type of uncial manuscripts. The parchment is not of the very thin sort. There has been no corrosion along the furrows made by the pen. The running title and colophons are in rustic capitals, not in uncials. The manner of forming such letters as {B E M R S T} differs from that employed in the oldest group. _B_ with the lower bow not so markedly larger than the upper. _E_ with the horizontal stroke placed nearer the middle. _M_ with the left bow tending to become a distinct curve. _R S T_ have gained in breadth and proportionately lost in height. [Sidenote: _Date of the Morgan manuscript_] Inasmuch as these palaeographical differences mark a tendency which reaches fuller development in later uncial manuscripts, it is clear that their presence in our manuscript is a sign of its more recent character as compared with manuscripts of the oldest type. Just as our manuscript is clearly older than the Codex Fuldensis of about the year 546, so it is clearly more recent than the Berlin _Computus Paschalis_ of about the year 447. Its proper place is at the end of the oldest series of uncial manuscripts, which begins with the Cicero palimpsest. Its closest neighbors are, I believe, the Pliny palimpsest of St. Paul in Carinthia and the _Codex Theodosianus_ of Turin. If we conclude by saying that the Morgan manuscript was written about the year 500 we shall probably not be far from the truth. [Sidenote: _Later history of the Morgan manuscript_] The vicissitudes of a manuscript often throw light upon the history of the text contained in the manuscript. And the palaeographer knows that any scratch or scribbling, any _probatio pennae_ or casual entry, may become important in tracing the wanderings of a manuscript. In the six leaves that have been saved of our Morgan manuscript we have two entries. One is of a neutral character and does not take us further, but the other is very clear and tells an unequivocal story.