44. An sano:  Lamb. an ut sano, which Halm approves, and Baiter reads. Similitudines:  cf. 84—­86.  The impossibility of distinguishing between twins, eggs, the impressions of seals, etc. was a favourite theme with the sceptics, while the Stoics contended that no two things were absolutely alike.  Aristo the Chian, who maintained the Stoic view, was practically refuted by his fellow pupil Persaeus, who took two twins, and made one deposit money with Aristo, while the other after a time asked for the money back and received it.  On this subject cf.  Sextus A.M. VII. 408—­410. Negat esse:  in phrases like this Cic. nearly always places esse second, especially at the end of a clause. Cur eo non estis contenti:  Lucullus here ignores the question at issue, which concerned the amount of similarity.  The dogmatists maintained that the similarity between two phenomena could never be great enough to render it impossible to guard against mistaking the one for the other, the sceptics argued that it could. Quod rerum natura non patitur:  again Lucullus confounds essential with phenomenal difference, and so misses his mark; cf. n. on 50. Nulla re differens:  cf. the nihil differens of 99, the substitution of which here would perhaps make the sentence clearer.  The words are a trans. of the common Gk. term [Greek:  aparallaktos] (Sext. A.M. VII. 252, etc.). Ulla communitas:  I am astonished to find Bait. returning to the reading of Lamb. nulla after the fine note of Madv. (Em. 154), approved by Halm and other recent edd.  The opinion maintained by the Stoics may be stated thus suo quidque genere est tale, quale est, nec est in duobus aut pluribus nulla re differens ulla communitas ([Greek:  oude hyparchei epimige aparallaktos]).  This opinion is negatived by non patitur ut and it will be evident at a glance that the only change required is to put the two verbs (est) into the subjunctive.  The change of ulla into nulla is in no way needed. Ut [sibi] sint:  sibi is clearly wrong here.  Madv., in a note communicated privately to Halm and printed by the latter on p. 854 of Bait. and Halm’s ed of the philosophical works, proposed to read nulla re differens communitas visi?  Sint et ova etc. omitting ulla and ut and changing visi into sibi (cf.  Faber’s em. novas for bonas in 72).  This ingenious but, as I think, improbable conj.  Madv. has just repeated in the second vol. of his Adversaria.  Lamb. reads at tibi sint, Dav. at si vis, sint, Christ ut tibi sint, Bait. ut si sint after C.F.W.  Muller, I should prefer sui for sibi (SVI for SIBI).  B is very frequently written for V in the MSS., and I would easily slip in. Eosdem:  once more we have Lucullus’ chronic and perhaps intentional misconception of the sceptic position; see n. on 50.  Before leaving this section, I may point out that the [Greek:  epimige] or [Greek:  epimixia ton phantasion] supplies Sext. with one of the sceptic [Greek:  tropoi], see Pyrrh.  Hyp. I. 124.