Haly Abbas likewise states that wheat is the most nutritious of all articles of food. Pliny asserts the same thing of it. He calls the siligo the _deliciæ tritici_. Galen explains the siligo and similago in much the same terms as our author. The third species, or the autopyrus, he says, consists of all the parts of the grain, the bran not being excluded. Actuarius, on the other hand, says that the bran only is rejected. Is not the text of the latter corrupt? Bran, Galen adds, is detergent, and contains little nourishment. Modern commentators have been greatly puzzled to determine what the _siligo_, _similago_, and _autopyrus_ of the ancients were. It appears impossible to reconcile all the different descriptions of them given by ancient writers, and therefore we cannot but suspect that some of them must have written from an imperfect acquaintance with the subject. Upon the whole, we are inclined to think that we shall not be far from the truth if we set them down as varieties of flour or bread, as regards quality, corresponding in a great measure, to the kinds of bread now distinguished by the names of the white, the wheaten, and the household. At all events the _autopyrus_ is certainly analogous to the last. The furfuraceus, or panis cibarius of Celsus, was made solely from bran. Theophrastus mentions that the lightest wheat imported to Greece in his time was the Pontic. It is curious to remark that Odessa wheat still retains its ancient character. The heaviest, he says, was the Sicilian, which, however, was lighter than the Bœotian. Pliny says that the lightest wheat brought to the Roman market was the Gallic, and then that imported from the Chersonese. The first in excellence, he adds, are the Bœotian, the Sicilian, and next to these the African.