Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Vol. I

Before we speak about the age of the recensions, it remains for us to add a few things about the order of the context, which is disturbed in some manuscripts and in the Basle edition:
p. 88, 11 "and of the first paradigm" | "the day and night" original: "τὸ δὲ νυχθήμερον" to p. 110, 5 "these gods" | "concerning the following" are handed down in this order in D:
Codex D p. 527 adds after "paradigm" (p. 88, 11): "look for what follows after five leaves where +" (i.e., at the beginning of p. 534). Then, with a window of four letters opened, it continues:
| "and the third through the" (p. 99, 3) to p. 534 "these gods" | (p. 110, 5). There follow p. 534 | "the day and night" (p. 88, 12) to p. 540 "generating from the paradigm" (p. 99, 3).
That two volumes of leaves of the same size were swapped while the quaternions gatherings of four sheets or quiniones gatherings of five sheets were being ordered, as it seems, is obvious to everyone.
The situation is slightly different in the Oxford, Vienna, and perhaps other manuscripts of the vulgate recension:
p. 88, 11 | "the day and night" to p. 90, 5 "the Nights stood firm" | (what follows, the beginning of the incomplete statement "for together with her on the third Night," is missing in A b, but exists in Q D Vienna) are handed down in their proper place.
Conversely, p. 90, 6 | "the thing thus" to p. 99, 3 "generating from the paradigm" | and p. 99, 3 | "and the third" to p. 110, 5 "these gods" | have been transposed.

We learned that the oldest witness to Proclus’s commentaries, which far exceeds the manuscripts in age, is the scholiast of Plato in the first book, since there was little certainty about the age of that anonymous Christian who is the author of the dialogue on astrology attributed to Hermippus. We recalled above that the memory of the best codices is revealed in the Platonic scholia marginal commentaries, and that it is perhaps more excellent than any book currently extant. However, the fragments of the Anonymous are too small to allow us to determine anything certain about the recension of the context (cf. vol. I p. XLIX s.).
J. Bidez has compared those most extensive parts of the third book of commentaries, which the Byzantine Michael Psellus brought in the 11th century in a short commentary he wrote, or rather transcribed, on the soul-generation of Plato εἰς τὴν ψυχογονίαν τοῦ Πλάτωνος.