|User Name||Thread Name||Subject||Posted|
|GUEST,doc.tom||Who was Sir Roger Decoverley? (33)||RE: Who was Sir Roger Decoverley?||08 Jun 08|
Anglo's interpretation just above is the most logical! The only other possibility is that it was a printers error which was perpetuated in subsequent editions (not unusual) until it was finally corrected. /16 = semiquavers: /8 = quavers: /4 = crotchets: /2 = minims: /1 = breves. The clue is in the number series. There simply is not, nor ever was, a note value of 9.