Since the publication of Otto’s article in 1886,[68] in which the author defended the _F_ branch against that of _MV_, to which, as the elder representative of the tradition, Keil had not unnaturally deferred, critical procedure has gradually shifted its centre. The reappearance of _B_ greatly helped, as it corroborates the testimony of _F_. _B_ and _F_ head the list of the manuscripts used by Kukula in his edition of 1912,[69] and _B_ and _F_ with Aldus’s Parisinus make up Class I, not Class II, in Merrill’s grouping of the manuscripts. Obviously, the value of Class I mounts higher still now that we have evidence in the Morgan fragment of its existence in the early sixth century. This fact helps us to decide the question of glosses in our text. We are more than ever disposed to attribute not to _BF_ but to what has now become the younger branch of the tradition, Class II, the tendency to interpolate explanatory glosses. The changed attitude towards the _BF_ branch has naturally resulted in a gradual transformation of the text. We have seen in the portion included in _Π_ that of the eleven readings which Keil regarded as errors of the _F_ branch, three are accepted by Kukula and five by Merrill.[70] [Footnote 68: “Die Ueberlieferung der Briefe des jüngeren Plinius,” in _Hermes_ XXI (1886), pp. 287 ff.] [Footnote 69: See p. iv.] [Footnote 70: See above, pp. 47 f.] Since Class I has thus appreciated in value, we should expect that Aldus’s stock would also take an upward turn. In Aldus’s lifetime, curiously, he was criticized for excessive conservatism. His rival Catanaeus finds his chief quality _supina ignorantia_ and adds:[71] “Verum enim uero non satis est recuperare venerandae vetustatis exemplaria, nisi etiam simul adsit acre emendatoris iudicium: quoniam et veteres librarii in voluminibus describendis saepissime falsi sunt, et Plinius ipse scripta sua se viuo deprauari in quadam epistola demonstrauerit.” [Footnote 71: See the prefatory letter in his edition of 1518.]