No we aren t The article talks about inserting 22 days before the last five days of February the impliaction being that 22 new days were insterted and the days that followed formed a part of the monthy of February That is an idea I have seen in a number of places on USENET and would imply that a intercalarius has only 22 23 days and b that the last days of the year before March would be part of February again contemporary evidence says no It may be this is not what the article means but in that case it should say that February was shortened and followed by Interc of 27 days is that what you think it says There s no discussion of the additional day by the way