Stephanus 223b9ff.

S: Yet let's look at it in this way as well:

Good idea!

for the thing being now sought is not something that partakes of a trivial art, but of one that is exceedingly many-colored. For in the things said before an apparition displays (?) (παρέχεται) that this is not what we now say but is some other genus.

T: In what way could this possibly be (πῇ δή;)?

Theaetetus can't believe his ears.

S: The species of the art of acquisition was, I suppose, two-fold--the one having the hunting part and the other the exchanging  (ἀλλακτικόν).

T: Yes, it was.

This is not correct either.

This is the earlier division (at 219d4):

Ξένος
κτητικῆς δὲ ἆρ᾽ οὐ δύο εἴδη; τὸ μὲν ἑκόντων πρὸς ἑκόντας μεταβλητικὸν ὂν διά τε δωρεῶν καὶ μισθώσεων καὶ ἀγοράσεων, τὸ δὲ λοιπόν, ἢ κατ᾽ ἔργα ἢ κατὰ λόγους χειρούμενον σύμπαν, χειρωτικὸν ἂν εἴη;

Θεαίτητος
φαίνεται γοῦν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων.

S: And are there not two species of the art of acquisition? The one of those who are willing in relation to those who are willing--being by way of exchange (μεταβλητικὸν) through gifts and rentings and purchasings--the remaining one--by conquering everything by deeds and words--would be by way of conquering (χειρωτικὸν).

T: [So] it appears, at least, from the things that have been said.

So, the division of the art of acquiring was into exchanging and conquering, not exchanging and hunting.

Also, the word for exchanging used earlier was μεταβλητικὸν not ἀλλακτικόν. (Doesn't seem like a big deal until you see that the Stanger will speak of exchanging over and over again using different words every time.)

This is what I said at the time:

Theaetetus is not able yet to see these things for himself--he can only "see" them once the Stranger tells him....It would be great if Theaetetus could start seeing these things for himself without the Stranger telling him or indicating to him what the answer is.

If Theaetetus had been following the divisions himself and not only once the Stranger pointed something out, maybe he would have been able to identify this mistake.

Note also that this mistake follows from assuming that the sophist is like the angler (see the decision to pursue the angler on the mastery trail rather than on the exchanging trail (at 219d9).

S: Of the art of exchanging (ἀλλακτικῆς), then, let's say that there are two species--the part that has to do with giving and the other is commercial.

T: Let it have  been said.

S: We shall say, in turn, that the commercial art is cut in two.

T: In what way?

S: The one of things you make yourself, when it is divided, is the art of selling your own products, the other, exchanging the works of others, is the art of exchanging (μεταβλητικήν).

T: That's very much the case.

As I just said, μεταβλητικήν is the word that the Stranger used when he divided the art of acquisition into exchanging and conquering (at 219d5).

S: What then? Of the art of exchanging (τῆς μεταβλητικῆς), isn't the one exchanging (ἀλλαγή) in the city, being pretty much the half part of it, called retailing?

T: Yes.

S: [Isn't] the other that exchanges ( διαλλάττον) from one city to another by buying and selling [called] the merchant's art?

T: Of course.

S: Of the merchant's art, then, have we not perceived that the one--by as many things as the body is nourished and uses--and the other by as many things as the soul--exchanges (ἀλλάττεται) by selling them for money?

T: What do you mean?

S: Perhaps we are ignorant of the one concerning the soul, since I suppose we understand the other, at least.

T: Yes.