HB 62 starts thus:
“Tunc Dutigirn in illo tempore fortiter dimicabat contra gentem Anglorum.”
“Then Outigern at that time bravely fought against the English nation.”
Note, since the name Dutigirn is unknown, it was considered a corruption of Outigern whose modern form is Eudeyrn. This passage immediately follows a reference to Ida son of Eobba. Moreover, the following text indicates Eudeyrn was a contemporary of Talhaearn, Aneirin, Taliesin, Blwchbardd and Cian, as well as Maelgwn Gwynedd. All this information points to Eudeyrn being of gen. 1. The problem is that although a ruler of that name appears in gen. -14, namely Eudeyrn ab Eifudd, none appears in gen. 1. However, it is to be noted that the name of the Eudeyrn, just mentioned, is corrupted to Keyeirn in MG 1 and Kyndeern in JC 5. We may, therefore, speculate that Dutigirn was actually Cyndeyrn, the corruption occuring in the opposite sense.
|Gen.||ByS 14||ByS 6b|
|1||Vryen||(llu) Lewdwn luydawc||Kyndeyrn|
Cyndeyrn Garthwys must be excluded from consideration as he appears two generations later. It follows a likely candidate for Outigern is Cyndeyrn ap Cyngar.
J. Gwenogvryn Evans noted how the names of the rulers are given at the end of HB 62 and the start of HB 63:
[I]da the son of Eobba
[ ]unc dutigirn in his time flourished Tal., etc
[M]ailcun king of Gwynedd
[A]dda the son of Ida, etc
The entries in square brackets shown above are not there in the manuscript. Those letters were for the rubricator to enter. The mistake that has been perpetuated is to have accepted that the start of the second line above should have the letter ‘T’ for the word ‘Tunc’, meaning ‘Then’. Evans noted that all the other names, Ida, Mailcun and Adda, have the personal name followed by some words to identify the person. He correctly concluded that M]unc is the name that precedes dutigirn.
However, Evans erred when he interpreted ‘Munc’ as ‘Magnus’. In reality, ‘Munc’ was ‘Mungo’, the pet name of Kentigern. Although, Evans referred to this in his footnote he rejected the idea as he claimed there was no evidence of Kentigern at St. Asaph. He did not realise there were two Cyndeyrns, a northern and a southern one, as pointed out at Jocelin’s Life of Kentigern. To conclude, ‘Munc dutigirn’, that is Mungo Cyndeyrn, was Cyndeyrn ap Cyngar.
 Evans, J.G., 1924, Cy. vol. 34, 7.