XI. carruce villanis xv. [villani, XV. villani et xv. bordarii xv. bordarii, xi. servi. Unum mol' cum xi. carucis. Ibi xi. servi, de xvi. denariis, et alii duo mol' et i. molinus de xvi. denariis de xxxii. denariis. Pratum] xvi. et alii duo molini xxxii. carrucis. denariis. Pratum xvi. carucis. The importance of such an omission as this lies in the proof of unintelligent clerkship and want of revision which so unmeaning an entry as 'xv. xvi. carrucis' supplies. Omissions of another character are not infrequent. On fo. 95B (1) an entire holding of a virgate (held by a sokeman of Earl Alan) is omitted (p. 34). Another sokeman of Earl Alan (p. 32) has his holding (1/4 virgate) omitted on the same folio (95A, 1), so is an entire holding of Hardwin's (p. 36) on fo. 96A (2). A demesne plough ('i. caruca') of Hugh de Port (p. 8) is omitted (78A, 1), and so are the ploughs ('et iiii. villanis') of Aubrey's villeins (p. 9) a few lines lower down. On fo. 90A (1) the words 'ibi est terra' are wanting (p. 15),[15] and so are 'non potuit' on fo. 100 (A) 1.[16] The word 'recedere' is left out on fo. 103B (2),[17] and 'soca' just before (103 (B) 1).[18] 'Odo' is similarly wanting on fo. 90A (1).[19] The note also on the Abbot of Ely's sokeman at Lollesworth (p. 95), is wholly omitted (fo. 113, B, 2), though found both in Domesday Book and in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_.[20] Turning now to the clerical blunders, we find an abundant crop. We may express them conveniently in tabular form: Folio Page