Mr. Fotheringham's paper, if I understand it rightly, divides itself into three parts. He corrects certain errors in my tabular statement of the evidence, and in my commentary on it; he criticizes my suggestion that the ‘List of Thalassocracies’ may represent a fifth-century document; and he reconstructs from materials comprised wholly in the existing texts of Eusebius' work an outline of the Eusebian view of the ‘List,’ as he understands it; the gist of which is that he thinks that Eusebius not merely incorporated in his Canones the names of all the states contained in the ‘List,’ but also intended to space the thalassocracies according to the numerals contained in the Excerpt. From this he infers that, where the numerals in the Excerpt are lost, they may safely be restored from the intervals indicated in the Canones; and from this, finally, (1) that the Excerpt was not mutilated when Eusebius incorporated it in his Chronographia, and (2) that it represented, in its missing section at all events, the same chronological scheme as underlies the rest of Eusebius' work, and not, as I had been led to suggest, a different, earlier, and more accurate system.