[1] Likewise in other lexica, beginning with Hesychius lambda439; see the references at Photius lambda122 Theodoridis. The headword -- aorist participle, masculine nominative singular, of the verb lafu/ssw (cf. generally lambda 156, lambda 159) -- is presumably quoted from somewhere. Its earliest attested appearances are in Gregory of Nazianzus (Against Julian PG 35.661, Carmina quae spectant ad alios PG 37.1487), but the Lexicon on Gregory of Nazianzus glosses the word as "drawing off, using up" or "devouring". Hesychius may have been glossing an unknown instance, or the aorist in general.
[2] Aelian fr. 159 Domingo-Forasté (156 Hercher), attested only here. The second clause is disconnected as a nominative participle, and it is not clear how (or indeed whether) it relates to the first. Adler prints it as a separate quotation altogether, while noting Bernhardy's suggestion that it relates ad orationem ducis Romani.
[3] An approximation of Theophylact Simocatta, Histories 2.5.6, which refers to "some members of the Persian [army]" and illustrates the idea that "labouring under an unphilosophical principle, the conclusions will progress in a manner akin to the premises". (Or less delicately put, that the Persians were incapable of reasoning logically.) Theophylact describes how prior to the Battle of Solachon (in the spring of 586, cf. alpha 141 note), the Persian commander Kardarigan (cf. gamma 116 generally) had ordered his troops to slit their skin flasks and empty them of water. The general thought that since the Romans defended the nearest water source, the Arzamon river (Barrington Atlas map 89 grid C4), this would provide extra incentive for his troops to do battle with the enemy (Histories 2.5.4). But, according to Simocatta, during the retreat after defeat by the Romans, many of the Persians then died from over-hydration after finding water wells; cf. de Boor (78) and Whitby (49).