The paper presents three strong arguments advocating for the exclusion of the table of Ptolemy’s own planetary terms from the original text of the Tetrabiblos. This table was vastly used by Renaissance astrologers, and much work on its rationale and its manuscript variant readings has been published recently. The author argues that the table was the product of the systematic analysis of Ptolemy’s instructions for the terms in the late antique commentary on the Tetrabiblos edited by Wolf in 1559, and (...) that it entered the direct transmission of Ptolemy’s text in the Byzantine period, probably in the 11th century through cod. Laur. 28,34. The absence of the table in the original Tetrabiblos would explain Ptolemy’s recourse to a probably invented manuscript find and his limited account of the system’s workings. (shrink)