Notes #	Note
1	Q.Fabius Ambustus Vibulanus , cos 412, may be another Fabius, since there is no mark of iteration. (see Degrassi 97)
2	M.Fabius Ambustus mag eq 322 has no filiation and may not be the consul of 360 due to the large gap in years. Possibly an otherwise unknown son ?
3	M.Fabius Ambustus, mentioned by Smith (Ambustus 2) and Wikipedia as pontifex maximus in 390 is only based on a Fabius mentioned by Plutarch (Camillus 21) and is probably an error for M.Folius, mentioned by Livius 5.41 as pontifex maximus. Plutarch has probably confused his Fabius with Fabius Dorsuo mentioned as a priest in 390, and M.Fabius Ambustus mentioned in 391 by Livy as the father of the three Fabii. The filiation Q.f.Q.n. in Wikipedia has no basis.
4	On the identity of cos 365  see the discussion in Sumner: Brutus p. 30-32. The uncertainty revolves around whether the Cunctator is the grandson or great grandson of Rullianus.
5	The adoptive father of Aemilianus and Servilianus is presumably the pr.181, but their filiation of Q.f.Q.n. puzzles, since the pr 181 can hardly have a father Quintus, if he is the grandson of Cunctator. The augur died young and cannot be the adoptive father, a solution could be that he adopted (testamentary) his cousin the pr.181, which would make his adoptive sons Q.f.Q.n.. See note 8, which might postulate that the pr 181 could actually be a Q.f.
6	The Annalist Fabius Pictor's grandfather was supposedly a C.Fabius who painted the temple of Salus dedicated in 304. This would make the annalist the son of the cos 269. The filiation of the two Pictors cos 269 and 266 fits with C.Ambustus m.eq. In 315, who does seem unlikely as a painter in 302. A completely different stemma could be drawn if the two Pictors were first cousins of Fabius Licinus cos 273.
7	Livy has a C.Fabius Ambustus as q 409 and cos 404 (RE39), while the Fasti Capitolini have the cos 404 as a Kaeso (RE42)
8	Sumner proposes that the augur of 203-196 is not a Q.Fabius Maximus (against Livy), but Q.Fabius M.f. Buteo (pr 196 for Hisp Ult, but appears not to have gone to his province  and is not heard of after 196). If so Q.Fabius Maximus, pr 181 may be the son of the deceased cos 213. See note 5.