(2/2/49, 74, and 299; 3/2/16 and 274; 4/1/73 and 131). It is useful to point out that, in most of these places, he explicitly used a transmission formula indicating direct narration from him. This is something not mentioned in his biographical entry, nor in that of al-Rāzī, in al-Mizzī’s Tahdhīb al-Kamāl or its derivative works—perhaps because of his weakness, or because al-Bukhārī did not narrate from him in his other books, whose transmitters they documented, such as al-Adab al-Mufrad and others.

The second is that he confines himself to identifying him through his father, without naming him, saying, “Ibn Ḥumayd.” The references are:

(1/2/196 and 324; 2/2/218; 4/1/1/98–99).

I found that he left him unidentified in only two places:

The first: (2/1/204).

The other: (3/2/119).

As for the first place, however, he identified him elsewhere, at (1/2/196), as “Ibn Ḥumayd,” in the very same hadith that he narrated in the first location. It is therefore possible that this identification was omitted there by the copyist.

As for the other place, the possibility mentioned earlier may be advanced, as well as the variation among manuscript copies that will shortly be mentioned.

Then I found a third place, (3/1/16), where he appears unidentified; but the editor noted in his comment there that one manuscript reads “Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd.” This is why I included it among the first set mentioned above.

In sum, this investigation and verification has shown me that it was al-Bukhārī’s practice