_B_ and _C_ sporadically offer the third declension accusative plural ending _-is_ (ix 4 _fascis_ _C_, ix 7 _partis_ _C_, ix 73 _rudentis_ _B_, x 17 _cantantis_ _B_, xii 30 _albentis_ _B_). But more usually all manuscripts, including _B_ and _C_, have the accusative in _-es_: compare for example ii 27 _partes_, iii 53 _purgantes_, ix 35 _praesentes_, and ix 42 _fasces_. The manuscripts show a similar variation in the earlier books of the _Ex Ponto_. The ninth-century Hamburg manuscript (_A_) sometimes offers accusatives in _-is_ where the other manuscripts, even _B_ and _C_, have _-es_ (I iv 23 _partis_, I v 11 _talis_, I vi 39 _ligantis_, I vi 51 _turris_). At I ii 4, _A_ has _omnes_, where _C1_ has _omnis_, and in general even in _A_ the accusative in _-es_ is the predominant form. For example, _A_ offers _auris_ at II iv 13 and II ix 25, but _aures_ at I ii 127, I ix 5, II v 33, and II ix 3. In view of the instability of the manuscript evidence[10], I have normalized the ending to _-es_ in all cases, considering the instances of _-is_ to be scribal interpolations. [Footnote 10: G. P. Goold ("Amatoria Critica", _HSPh_ 69 [1965] 10) has an interesting discussion of the problems in establishing Ovid's orthography. For accusative plural endings in the third declension, he concludes that _-is_ for Ovid can be neither established nor excluded.] Similarly, I have used the form _penna_ at iv 12 and vii 37, where _C_ offers _pinna_. _Penna_ is the form given in the ancient manuscripts of Virgil, and attested by Quintilian. _MFHILT_ The other manuscripts I have collated belong to the vulgate class. They are not related to each other in the sense that _B_ and _C_ are related, nor does any of them possess independent authority as does _G_. Within the group firm lines of affiliation are hard to establish, and each of the manuscripts attests a handful of good readings that are found in few or none of the others, either by happy conjecture, or because a reading that was in circulation at the time as a variant chanced to get copied into a few surviving manuscripts. Professor R. J. Tarrant has noted that the presence of the _Ex Ponto_ in north-central France 'can be traced from the eleventh century onwards, first from echoes in Hildebert of Lavardin and Baudri de Bourgeuil, later from the extracts in the _Florilegium Gallicum_, and finally from the complete texts [which include our _H_ and _F_] ... that emanate from this region toward the end of the twelfth century' (_Texts and Transmission_ 263); the vulgate manuscripts seem to have been propagated from the text current in the region of Orléans. _M_ and _F_ show some originality. Their readings at xvi 33 differ somewhat from the version of that passage in _HILT_. _F1_'s interpolation for the missing pentameter at iii 44 differs from that of _MHILT_, while _M_ has an interpolated distich following x 6 that is not otherwise attested.