宋代將《穀梁傳》注疏合刻，以方便故，單疏本遂不流行。惟合刻時更改出文、變換體例，若非與單疏本核校，無從知之。注疏合刻改動或有其考量，單疏本亦有原意，且還原其本，善者從之，不善者勘正之。過去陳鱣、阮元云何煌校《穀梁》所據單疏本為明李中麓抄本，今之學者也認為李中麓抄本是今存三種《穀梁》單疏本的祖本。經核對發現，目前留存的《穀梁》單疏本可分為兩系，其一為清陳鱣抄本、瞿鏞恬裕齋抄本，其二為劉承幹據張金吾抄本刊刻之《嘉業堂叢書》《穀梁疏》。又阮元校勘記中引何煌校本者，疑何煌並據以上兩系之單疏本而來。

During the Song dynasty, two commentaries were published on the Guliang zhuan; one is the original commentary, and the other is the same commentary printed together with annotations. Due to the relative convenience of the latter, the former has fallen out of use. However, collating these two commentaries reveals that some changes in diction and style crept in during the production of the combined edition, yet the existence of these discrepancies has not become universal knowledge amongst sinologists. While these emendations may have been made with due consideration, astute scholars still follow the original commentary, but some have made “corrections” based on the combined edition. Chen Shan and Ruan Yuan have argued that the separate commentary used by He Huang for his redaction of the Guliang was a manuscript written by Li Zhonglu in the Ming dynasty, and contemporary scholars believe that this manuscript is the ancestor of the three extant separate commentaries. Close collation of the extant versions of these separate commentaries reveals that they can be divided into two systems: 1) the Qing manuscript of Chen Shan, and the Tianyuzhai manuscript of Qu Yong; and 2) Liu Chenggan’s woodblock edition of the Guliang in the Jiayetang collection based on the manuscript of Zhang Jinwu. Moreover, it is likely that the He Huang redaction cited by Ruan Yuan in his critical apparatus was also based on these two systems.