Comm. NT: 24. Ee reads añnamaññaṃ saṅkaro natthi. Ae omits saṅkaro natthi. The word saṅkara in the sense of “confounding” or “error” is not in PED; see Vism concluding verses, PTS ed., p.711:
Rūpakkhandhakathāvaṇṇanā
“Though these things, that is to say, the ‘mark … of the female,’ etc., arise each due to its own condition consisting in kamma, etc., they mostly only do so as modes in a continuity accompanied by the femininity faculty. And so ‘it is manifested as the reason for the mark,’ etc., is said making the femininity faculty their cause.
“As regards the ‘mark of the female,’ etc., too, its ‘facultiness’ is stated as predominance, in other words, as a state of cause, because the conditions for the modal matter (ākāra-rūpa) consisting of the mark of the female, etc., in a continuity accompanied by faculties do not arise otherwise, and because these kinds of materiality are a condition for apprehending the female.
Rūpakkhandhakathāvaṇṇanā
But because the femininity faculty does not generate even the material instances in its own group or maintain or consolidate them, and because it does not so act for the material instances of other groups, it is therefore not called in the text faculty, presence, and non-disappearance conditions, as the life faculty is for the material instances of its group, and as nutriment is for the material instances in succeeding groups.
And it is because the mark, etc., are dependent on other conditions that wherever they have predominance its shape is encountered, even in dead and sculptured matter that resembles it.
And so too with the masculinity faculty.
“And since these two do not occur together in a single continuity, because of the words, ‘Does the masculinity faculty arise in one in whom the femininity faculty arises?
—No’ (Yamaka), etc., therefore even in a hermaphrodite there is only one of them at a given moment (see also Dhs-a 323)” (Vism-mhṭ 448).