This paper is about error. Notoriously, the sole copy of the Silvae that has been transmitted to us from the fifteenth century is full of errors, thus creating particular challenges for the commentator. This paper is also about my own errors, in particular a missed opportunity in my commentary on Book 2 of Statius' Silvae to discuss an allusion to Virgil Aeneid 6.900-901 at Silvae 2.2.84-85.1 Ironically, this omission of mine concerned lines where, it is generally agreed, Virgil himself erred. In an Appendix at the end of the paper I try my hand at writing the note on Silvae 2.2.84-85 that I wish in retrospect I had written. The main body of this paper, however, allows me to unpack Statius' allusion and, in the process, to acknowledge the participation of Ovid and Valerius Flaccus in an interesting and diverse chain of reception for Virgil's error.But before I turn to my 'error' , I want to offer a few comments on the experience of writing a commentary on Book 2 of Statius' Silvae. My chief aims in writing the commentary were to elucidate the text and to convey the pleasures of poetry that is unmoored from conventional generic expectations. I also wished to move the Silvae away from the persistent view of this poetry as trifling and mannered and to demonstrate instead its innovative quality, the vividness and energy of its improvisational style, and its complex engagement with Flavian society. Book 2 of the Silvae particularly appealed to me as here Statius first develops the importance of regional identity to his poetics and literary profile, thus confronting directly, as we shall see, the issue of Virgilian succession in the imperial age.2One of the pleasures of writing a 'Green and Yellow' commentary is the connection with a community of scholars, both past and present. Not only do you work with a tradition of scholarship that goes back to the Humanists, but you also have the advantage of contemporary readers to comment on your work. In my case, I benefited greatly from the insights of Philip Hardie