Suolahti's main suggestions for these unknown censors are Spurius Nautius Rutilus and Manius Aemilius Mamercinus but adds Fabius as one of the viable options.
[9] Münzer accepted the essence of the tale as correct, but redated the marriage alliance to the mid-third century BC in order to explain the two families' political successes during the period.
By implication then, Fabius Vibulanus, the consul of 421 BC, was not called "Numerius", since, according to Münzer's theory, he predates the marriage alliance on which the name is contingent.
[11] Costa also preferred "Gnaeus", suggesting that its variant "Naeus" was confused with "Numerius" when the forenames were (as was common) abbreviated.
[12] Pinsent, on the other hand, rejected "Gnaeus", which he though is simply a corruption of text in Livy's manuscript, and accepted "Numerius", dismissing the story of the marriage alliance and its association with the name as later fabrications.