Collection of Remarkable Facts

Ammianus § 8 and Solinus § 2, in addition to Juba, cite Punic books which Pliny does not mention. Likewise, the controversial spirits mentioned in both Ammianus § 7 and Solinus § 10 are not drawn from Pliny. Whoever compares the remaining Solinian and Ammian texts will discover the same relationship existing between them everywhere.

It seems that a Plinian geography was published during the reign of Hadrian.

Therefore, since we have said above that the book of Solinus itself is no older than the third century, it must now be added that the work itself—which he contracted into a brief form and which we have named the Plinian geography—was already in human hands in the Antonine age, as attested by Appuleius, a writer of that time. That geography was written no earlier than Hadrian, since among the authors it praises, Granius Licinianus is found cited twice—by the name Granius on page 41, 7, and Licinianus on page 34, 14—having already been celebrated from obscurity due to the remains of his histories that were recently restored to letters.
Regarding Granius Licinianus.

Since the question concerning his age and works is quite perplexed and cannot be re-examined in this place, we will only briefly signify that certain indications of an age either of Hadrian or later than Hadrian have been detected in the London remains of Licinianus, especially the not obscure reference to the Olympieion that was completed in Athens by Hadrian. To me, however, Granius Licinianus and Flaccus appear to be different people, and the work of Licinianus does not appear to be interpolated by an author of a later age. If these things are true, we will conclude from this that the Plinian geography, which Solinus reduced into a compendium, was written in the second century during the reign of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius. — If the author of the book he summarized is indeed praised by name by Solinus, it cannot be anyone but Licinianus himself; yet, there was no reason why he should have used the name. With the same right, and perhaps better, you might conjecture that that other lost geography, together with the Pomponian work, had been used by the author of this book to augment Pliny, inasmuch as he is the only one cited in the remains of that work besides Varro (p. XV). But regarding this conjecture also, it must be said that it does not sufficiently appear why Solinus, who nowhere mentions either Mela or Pliny himself by word, should have declared the author of another geographical work, nor that such reasons as we brought forward above regarding Bocchus are available regarding Licinianus. — But let us put these aside; for the question concerning that Plinian geography entirely exceeds the limits of our little work.
Who else used the Plinian geography.

For in order for it to be satisfied, one must first diligently look around to see what other authors, besides Solinus, have preserved from that work, which was surely much read since the second century. Nor should that question be confined within Appuleius and Ammianus. I have shown after others (in chronol. p. 19) that the discussion concerning the Roman year, as it is read both in Solinus and in Censorinus in the book published in the year 238 A.D. and in Macrobius, a writer of the fifth century, is so constructed that the three narrators we have depend on a common author.