^{page 81 note 1} Ritter, , Neue Untersuchungen, pp. 230 f.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 2} Hambruch, , Logische Regeln d. plat. Schule, p. 7, also cites Arist. Met. 1039^a24, but A. is using his own terminology there.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 3} Arist. Pseudepigr. p. 678.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 4} Cf. Mutschmann, , Divisiones Arist., pp. vii f.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 5} Fr. 287 (K.); cf. Alexis, fr. 1.Google ScholarUsener, , Preuss. Jahrb. 1884Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, , Philol. Unters. iv. 283Google Scholar; Stenzel, , Studien ², 1931, p. 82Google Scholar; Herter, , Platons Akad. ², 1952, p. 21.Google Scholar Cf. Diès, , Plat. Polit. (Bude), p. xxviiGoogle Scholar, and the more cautious view of Jaeger, , Diokles v. Karystos, p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Cf. Arist, . Met. 1039^a24, 1085^a23Google Scholar; Cherniss, , A.'s Crit. of Plato, p. 46Google Scholar, Riddle of the Early Academy, pp. 40, 54Google Scholar; but see Ross, , Plato's Theory of Ideas, p. 241Google Scholar, on departmental hierarchies. Cornford's divided circle (Plato's Th. of Knowledge, p. 271Google Scholar) and Skemp's hachured map (Plato's Statesman, p. 74Google Scholar) are better images than the family tree suggested by A.'s

^{page 82 note 2} Anon, , in Arist. An. Post. 584. 17Google Scholar; Cherniss, , A.'s Crit., p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 3} Stenzel, , R.-E. ‘Speusippos’, 1640, 1653Google Scholar; Lang, , De Speus. Acad, scriptis, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 1} D.L. 4. 2. 13. Xenocrates would probably have meant the non-technical sense, as used in his fr. 9 (H.):

^{page 83 note 2} H.A. 523^b29, 525^a13, 622^a15; P.A. 685^b13. At 9. 393 f (= Arist, . fr. 271(R.), 1527^a12Google Scholar) Athenaeus says even more precisely …, and names the same five that A. gives at H.A. 593^a15; but A. calls these (544^b1), never

^{page 83 note 3} Cf. Bonitz, , Index 151^a12–40.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 4} Cf. Met. 1058^b26, 28 (Ross, ), 1071^b25, 27; Cat. 8^b27, 9^a14; An. Post. 97^b24, 34; Top. 101^a18, 105^a11, 20, ^b14, 106^a11, 24, 27 107^b, 109^a2, al.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 5} Ross ad 1058^b28. Cf. Long. Vit. 465^a2–6, H.A. 497^b9–12 (both discussed below).

^{page 83 note 6} vocat rem definiendam, Waitz ad 141^b28.

^{page 83 note 7} Top. 123^a30; cf. 127^a24; Bonitz, , Arist. Stud. iv. 355.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 1} Top. 107^a22, Cat. 1^b21; Bonitz, , Ind. 151^a45.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} Phys. 227^b14.

^{page 84 note 3} An. Post. 96^b15, 97^a35–^b6; Met. 1034^a7.

^{page 84 note 4} G.A. 4. 3 (cf. 769^b9).Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 5} Met. 1034^a1; G.A. 2. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 6} The contrast that N. Hartmann draws between Plato and A. (Zur Lehre v. Eidos bei P. u. A., 1941, pp. 12, 21) depends upon identifying eidos withGoogle Scholar

^{page 84 note 7} Met. 1038^a19–26; P.A. 644^a3.

^{page 84 note 8} G.A. 747^b33–748^a7. (At 770^b17, 772^b25 means the formal cause opposed to

^{page 85 note 1} For details see my paper ‘A.'s Use of Differentiae in Zoology’, contrib. to 2nd Symp. Arist. (Louvain, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} H.A. 490^b7, 505^b26. Not a technical term: cf. P.A. 683^b26, H.A. 490^b16 534_b13 ….

^{page 85 note 3} Full examination in Meyer, , Arist. ThierkundeGoogle Scholar, on which see my paper, loc. cit.

^{page 85 note 4} i.e. H.A. 1–9, P.A. 2–4, Inc. A., G.A., and Parv. Nat. 453_b11–458^a32 and 464^b19–480^b30 (de Somno, Long. Vit., and all from Fuv. to end of Resp.). Mot. A. and H.A. 10 can be ignored for this purpose.

^{page 85 note 5} Arist. Stud. iv. 386; Index 151^b57.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 1} As also perhaps in Plato's diairesis: cf. Diès, , Plat. Polit., p. xxi.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} Top. 103^a8, An. Post. 98^a20, Met. 1016^b33, 1018^a13, Phys. 228^b12, 242^b4, P.A. 639^a28, 644^a16, 645^b26. Cf. Bonitz, , Arist. Stud. iv. 386.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 2} Cf. Muskens, , De VocisGoogle ScholarSignificatione, etc. (Groningen, 1943), p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 3} Cf. Meyer, , Arist. Thierkunde, pp. 335–44.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} : not ‘highest’ but ‘largest’: not a vertical but a horizontal division. So Thompson: ‘very extensive’.

^{page 90 note 1} Following Camus, and followed by Thompson; so Waitz ad 19^b6.

^{page 91 note 1} Düring, thinks not (Arist.'s P.A., Critical and Literary Commentaries, p. 130).Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} Karsch, Külb, Tricot also take copulative, but as simply ‘nameless’.

^{page 93 note 2} This is true of (cf. 506^a20, 509^b8), but doubtful of ; cf. my paper quoted above.

^{page 93 note 3} 511^a14–16; Meyer, , p. 312.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 1} ‘Num genuina lectio sit, incertus haereo; … at certe mutandum censeo’, Dittmeyer.

^{page 94 note 2} Cf. 506^a20, 508^a5, 509^b8, 558^a 15, 609^a1.

^{page 95 note 1} Interchangeable at 725^b27 746^a30 … 746^b3 cf. H.A. 620^a22 564^a5 interchangeable at 747^b30–748^a15.

^{page 95 note 2} Bonitz, , Index 218^a41 ‘non videtur concinere’.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 1} Arist. ü. d. Seele (Grumach series), (Berlin. 1959), P. 89.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} The pygmies are a at H.A. 597^a8.

^{page 96 note 3} But see above on 488^b30 and 491^a18: such misstatements might cause an unwary reader to take as ‘within a species’.

^{page 97 note 1} Cf. Top. 103^a14, 108^a15, 133^b2, An. Pr. 26^a8, 28^a32, Met. 1016^a27, 1038^b18, 1058^a4, al.; P.A. 1. 639^a25.

^{page 97 note 2} At G.A. 730^b35 means ‘kind’ in general, not species as opposed to genus: A. did not think that interbreeding was limited to specifically identical animals, cf. 746^a29 f.

^{page 97 note 3} Cf. H.A. 584^b29, P.A. 655^b15, 656^a7, 16, 676^b33, G.A. 731^b35. 767^b33. 777^b5.

^{page 98 note 1} Cf. Schneider, ad Theophr, . H.P. 6. 1. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 98 note 2} So I venture to differ from le Blond, , Logique el mithode chez A., p. 72Google Scholar, A. philosophe de la vie, p. 59, note 3.Google Scholar