But this division immediately leads to another very curious result, and that is, a certain lack of authority for sections after the _fortieth_, which ends on p. 223. A. ends with an incomplete sentence, in sect. 40, with the words--'howre after howre.' B., C. end exactly at the same place. E. ends sect. 40 with the same words; and, after this, has only one additional section (46), which is, in my opinion, spurious; especially as it does not appear in Messahala, of which more anon. D., F., and G. all fail at an earlier point. In none of the first-class MSS. (excepting P., which terminates with section 43) is there a word about _umbra recta_ or _umbra versa_. Even in the second class of MSS., we find H. breaking off at sect. 36, and K. at sect. 35; so that the sections on the _umbrae_ rest only on MSS. I. (obviously an edition, not a transcript), L., M., N., O., P., and R. Putting aside the first of these, as being 'edited,' we have but six left; and in the first four and the last of these we find that the additional Conclusions appear in a certain order, viz. they insert 44 and 45 (on the 'mene mote') between three sections 41-43 on the 'umbrae' and five other sections 41_a_-42_b_ on the same. § 20. THE LAST FIVE SECTIONS SPURIOUS. This at once suggests two results. The _first_ is, that, as this gives two sets of sections on the 'umbrae,' we can hardly expect both to be genuine; and accordingly, we at once find that the _last five_ of these are mere clumsy repetitions of the _first three_; for which reason, I unhesitatingly reject the said _last five_ as spurious. This view is strikingly confirmed by MS. P.; for this, the only first-class MS. that is carried on beyond section 40, contains the first three sections on the 'umbrae' only. The _second_ result is, that if the first three sections on the 'umbrae' are to be received, there is good reason why we should consider the possible genuineness of sections 44 and 45 on the 'mene mote,' which rest very nearly on the same authority.