Water surface, Lake Qurûn, May 2nd, 1892 - 43·540 These levels I am convinced are correct, as they were taken with the utmost care, as I myself saw, by Messrs. W. O. Joseph and A. Pini, who had been in constant practice at levelling. The levels between Lake Qurûn and Dimay were taken twice over; the first levels, taken by Monsieur Pini alone, giving a difference of level between the lake and causeway of 68·952 metres, while the difference found, when both read, was 68·978. The levels for the old town near Schweinfurth’s “temple” having been found to be from R.L. 23 to 26, the theory that Lake Mœris was a little below the level of R.L. 23·00 is favoured by the determination of this level. The presence and peculiarities of the quay at Dimay, if it is such, and the existence of an old town on the heights where the Dimay ruins stand, if they can be used as evidence of what the lake level used to be, point to high levels rather than to low ones, and do not answer to Linant’s appeal to the old abandoned towns to bear witness in his favour. In connection with the levels of Dimay and Schweinfurth’s “temple” the levels of the ruins of Biahmu should be studied. These are given on Plates XXII. and XXIII. The top of the highest corner-stone of the enclosure wall, now _in situ_, is at R.L. 21·59, and, accepting Mr. Petrie’s restoration of these ruins, the top of this wall, when complete, would have been at R.L. 23·00, which would seem to indicate that the maximum water-level of the lake was below R.L. 23·00, but higher than R.L. 17·00, the level of the ground outside the enclosure. These ruins are referred to more fully on p. 83 _et seq_. _Mr. Flinders Petrie’s Views of Lake Mœris._—Having discussed the theories of Linant Pasha and Mr. Cope Whitehouse, the only two that I can find stated with any distinctness, and the only ones that have been put forward by travellers having a personal acquaintance with the Fayûm, I will, before setting forth my own reading of the past history of the province and my theory as to its connection or identity with Lake Mœris, first give Mr. Petrie’s views, who should be included with the two foregoing theorists, as a traveller having a personal acquaintance with the Fayûm, and, in a special line, a very intimate one. I do not think that he would claim that the expression of his views constitutes the enunciation of a new theory of Lake Mœris, but only his way of viewing an old theory with some side-lights of his own added by way of illumination.