C. Baker has established it: what was called the “Long Version” of Pierre de Beauvais’ Bestiaire is in fact the work of a “remanieur” (reviser), who was writing around 1246. This date makes it possible to invert the long accepted relationship between this “Long Version” and the Bestiaire d’amour: the latter could be a source of the former. This is C. Baker’s and G. Bianciotto’s opinion. But there is still evidence that continues to favor the traditional chronology. Neither the “Long Version’s” vocabulary, nor the concatenation of “natures” or the slightly anachronistic secular interpretation of some animals occasionally found in it, nor the lack of traces of Pierre de Beauvais’ Bestiaire in Richard de Fournival’s work are decisive proof of the new thesis. Furthermore, meticulous comparison of the two texts seems to imply that the Bestaire d’amour clarifies its model by working for greater concision and textual coherence, whereas the supposed compilation of the remanieur would result in a very clumsy account hardly compatible with his supposed virtuosity. And some of its possible borrowings would bring nothing to the religious allegorical construction, which is his work’s “raison d’être”. Overall, inverting the affiliation poses more problems than it resolves. But the debate remains open...