I understand and accept that elements of the Pali Canon, such as the Abhidhamma, developed over time (notwithstanding the traditional Theravada view) but perhaps there needs to be some means by which serious students can be reassured of the authenticity of material that is ranked as quasi-canonical, for instance. What is this meant to imply? If peri-canonical simply means beyond, or later, as in ‘post-canonical’, that’s fine. All this returns me to a previous comment I offered; that is, that perhaps much of the better research and translation undertaken today ought be included in a new or revised canonical category, although it does raise the question: which body of Sangha can be entrusted the task of admitting new scholarly material to the Canon (a seventh Council?) and must the Pali Canon be considered closed?