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

This matter, long since known by Georgio Linder, the Uppsala editor of Psellus, escaped me for some reason five years ago when I was alerted by Guilelmo Kroll while revising the context. However, Bidez rightly concludes that the recension of the Proclian text did not suffer grievous losses due to that error. For I have no doubt that Psellus’s Proclian book, which he primarily exhausted, was not only older than all the codices preserved to this day, but also that it stood on the side of the codices Q, D, and zeta (or rather, the vulgate recension).

I will bring forward some very significant examples so that the old memory of the vulgate recension may shine through:

[... The author provides a list of textual variants comparing manuscripts M, P, Q, zeta, and Psellus ...]

However, Psellus agrees with P four times against zeta (M, Q):
[... examples ...]

These variant readings are too light for them to have necessarily flowed from a single source. But if anyone were to contend that a lacuna caused by homoeoteleuton omission due to similar word endings existed entirely in the archetype of Q and zeta, and were to deny that clearly distinct supplements could be attributed to the genius of Psellus, remember that the same words return in another place in the commentaries (II 328, 13 ss).