¹ I am grateful to Dr J.R. Baker of the Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool, for advice on some of the content of this article.

² See further Kohlstedt, H., Das Römanische in den Artes des Consentios (Erlangen, 1917), 93f.Google Scholar

³ See Callebat, L. – Fleury, P., Vitruve de L'Architecture, Livre X (Paris, 1986), 92Google Scholarad loc. on the device and the text, arguing that forfices (translated ‘tenailles’) should not be changed to forcipes. For these examples oiforfex, see OLD, s.v.

⁴ See TLL VL1.1051.22ff. for further examples used of ‘instrumenta incisoria’.

⁵ See Walker, R.E., ‘Roman Veterinary Medicine’ in Toynbee, J.M.C., Animals in Roman Life and Art (London, 1973), 321.Google Scholar

⁶ Buecheler, F., Kleine Schriften (Leipzig and Berlin, 1915–1930), I, 573.Google Scholar

⁷ See Milne, J.S., Surgical Instruments in Greek and Roman Times (London, 1907), 49Google Scholar, suggesting that it may have been difficult to get a fine enough edge on it.

⁸ Note the plural: the singular and plural forms are used indifferently: TLL VI. 1.1050.46ff.

⁹ op. cit. (note 5), 324.

¹⁰ See Rolling, A., ‘Römische Kastrierzangen’ Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt iii (1973), 353ff.Google Scholar, with illustrations; Down, A., Antiqu. Journ. lxii (1982), 368.Google Scholar The first of these articles was drawn to my attention by K.-D. Fischer, the second by M.W. C. Hassall.

¹¹ Note Pliny, Nat. 9.97 ‘denticulatis forcipibus’, of a crab's pincers; a tool which resembled these might well have the same or a similar name. Cf. Nat. 11.97 ‘dentatis forcipibus’, of a beetle.

¹² This intransitive usage is not registered in Feltenius, L., Intransitivizations in Latin (Uppsala, 1977).Google Scholar

¹³ op. cit. (note 5), 333.

¹⁴ op. cit. (note 5), 324.

¹⁵ The writers are indebted to Mr Evans for allowing us to publish his find which remains in his possession.