A few questions about a Lobel-Page critical note

Question

In a critical note by Lobel-Page, I read:

κάλαις ὔμμιν cod. A, quo retento τὸ νόημ[μα] ci. Bekker. quod quamvis cum grammatici verbis aptius congruere videatur, tamen ob ν ἐφελκυστικόν positionem effecturum recipere noluimus

Questions about this:

1. What does "ci." stand for?
2. Does the period after "Bekker.", given the absence of a following capital, mean the name is not Bekker but Bekker+something else hidden in the period? And if so, why does Campbell not have the period? And if not, what is the point of the period? Was a capitalization forgotten?
3. Does "cod. A" mean that there is another codex or more going like cod. B and so on?
4. Why is the "nu ephelkystikon positionem effecturum" an objection to the Bekker emendation?

Answer 1

1. coniecit. It is Bekker's conjecture.
2. He seems not to use a capital at the start of a sentence.
3. yes. It should be explained somewhere what these codices are.
4. He is saying that Bekker's emendation does not scan properly.