Abbatis Villa for Abbeville. Ambiani “ Amiens. Andegavum “ Angers. Angolismum, or } “ Angoulême. Engolismum } Argentina, or } “ Strasbourg. Argentinensis } Atrebatum “ Arras. Aurelia “ Orleans. Avenio for Avignon. Bisuntia “ Besançon. Buscum Ducis “ Bois-le-duc. Cadomum “ Caen. Carnutum “ Chartres. Divióne “ Dijon. Dola “ Dol. Duacum “ Douay. Ebroicum “ Evreux. Ganabum and } “ Orleans. Aurelia } Gratianopolis “ Grenoble. Landumum “ Laon. Lugdunum, or } “ Lyons. Lugd. } Lutetia Parisiorum “ Paris. Massilia “ Marseilles. Matisco “ Macon. Milhusini “ Mulhouse. Nanceium “ Nancy. Nannetes “ Nantes. Parisii “ Paris. Pictavium “ Poitiers. Rothomagum “ Rouen. Sylva Ducis “ Bois-le-duc. Tholosa “ Toulouse. Turones “ Tours. Vesontio “ Besançon. These are the towns most likely to be met with; should others occur, not here enumerated, the collector may consult _A Topographical Gazetteer_, by the Rev. Henry Cotton, D.C.L. Which is the best system of classification? This question has often been asked, and no satisfactory reply to it has yet been given. It must, indeed, remain to a large extent a matter of individual taste, depending on the leisure and pecuniary means of the collector, the extent and value of his collection, and the special circumstances (if any) for which the collection has been formed. There are three principal systems, each of which has its advantages and its drawbacks, 1. The simple alphabetical. 2. The national, with subdivisions. 3. The arrangement according to the styles of the designs. No doubt the purely alphabetical arrangement, according to the family names of the plate owners, is at once the easiest to plan out, and the simplest for the purposes of reference. It also lends itself well to the tracing of family history, and the comparison of the modifications of heraldry in successive generations.