If now we take the _nomos_ to be a _diobol_, each vine is worth 4⅔ _nomi_, or 14 _nomi_, according as there are 50 or 150 vines to the _schoenus_. Now, as the valuable and slow growing olive is only worth 10 _nomi_, and it is impossible to believe that the relative values of olive and vine could have ever been such as those arrived at on the assumption that the _nomos_ is a diobol, we must turn to the alternative course and take the _nomos_ as a didrachm. The penalty for a _schoenus_ of vines is two minae or 110 didrachms. If 150 vines go to a _schoenus_, each will be worth about ⅔ didrachm, 15 vines being equal to one olive, or taking 50 vines to the _schoenus_, each vine will be worth about two didrachms, 5 vines being worth one olive. This result is so rational that we need hesitate no longer to regard the well-known Tarentine didrachm as the _nomos_ (_noummos_) of Aristotle. There is such a difference between the _nomos_ of Sicily, identical with the Aeginetan obol, and that of Tarentum that we are forced to conclude that the term _nomos_ is not specially applied to any particular coin unit. In Sicily we found the native unit, the litra, identified in certain cases, at least in earlier times, with the Aeginetan obol as well as with the _nomos_. Why two names _nomos_ and _litra_ for the same unit? Is one Sicilian and the other Greek? This at least gives a reasonable explanation. The Dorians then in Sicily gave the name to their earliest coins, _nomos_, with them indicating the unit of currency established by law just as did _nomisma_ among other Greeks. As in Sicily the Aeginetic obol was the _legal coin_ (_nomos_) _par excellence_, so at Tarentum, where didrachms were the first coins to be struck, the term (_nomos_) was applied to that unit. We may therefore expect to find the term _nomos_ applied to various kinds of coins among the Italiotes and Italians, according to the particular coin chosen by each state as its own unit of account.