The IPA alphabet is, first and foremost, a device for use in the making of impressionistic records of spoken language events. There is no alternative device in widespread use. It is neither full nor systematic as a device for this purpose, but can be used remarkably effectively if supplemented with ad hoc extensions and adaptations. Such adaptations need to be explicit if used in published material, but they need not be standard. They do need, though, to be sensible. Although the IPA letter-shapes are not systematic, the articulatory classification that underlies them is. Within this classification it would be perverse to relate a ‘linguo-labial’ to, say, the category ‘velar’, and so a representation based on the letter-shape ‘k’ would be undesirable. Given these limits, though, I can see no theoretical reason why ‘linguo-labials’ should not be written in a number of ways. [P‥] etc. is one way. It is not a particularily good one, in my view, as [‥] is a diacritic that distinguishes a PASSIVE articulator, and this passive articulator is nowhere involved in ‘linguo-labials’. But I would happily accept [P‥]. It would be desirable for a degree of uniformity to apply in PUBLISHED material, but this is a matter more for editors and for publishers than for front-line linguists. At the PHONETIC level, I can't see that it matters whether we use [P‥] or, say, [‡] in published material: and other suggestions will no doubt be forthcoming, PRACTICAL considerations are paramount here, some solutions being easier to print, type and read than others.