The article reconsiders questions about the identity of the notation to which Aristoxenus refers at Harm. II, 49.1 ff. In previous publications I had drawn attention to difficulties in identifying it as the familiar ‘Alypian’ notation, and here I try to answer the objections I had raised to that hypothesis. If my answers are adequate, the notation could indeed be the Alypian one, but I also consider the possibility that it might be another form of notation, known only from a passage of Aristides Quintilianus. The target of Aristoxenus’ comments could be either of these two notations; or perhaps he intended his remarks to apply to both of them equally. [http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/22129758-12341269]