This paper is concerned with inflectional morphology. Its point of departure is the old insight that paradigms of content categories are typically nested inside other paradigms forming hierarchical structures, e.g., case paradigms are included in number paradigms: case] number]. Similarly, say, in the Latin verb, person] number] tense] aspect] mood] voice] (Section 1). As for exponence, paradigms (selectional sets) of inflectional classes (declensions, conjugations) are more often flat (linear) and asymmetrical with respect to one or more characteristics, e.g., meaning, stem shape, or productivity. But they may include selectional sets of allomorphs at a lower level, say, in individual cases or tenses, presenting paradigms in paradigms within paradigms (...) (Section 1.1). A third dimension in inflectional systems is the typological paradigm of morphological techniques commonly reflected in synchronic variation; English verb morphology, for instance, comprises analytic (will call, got arrested), agglutinative (waded, jogged), fusional (kept, built), and introflective (sang, hung) formations (Section 2.1). As additional examples of typological paradigms the conjugations of French, Latin, and Russian are examined (Sections 2.1���2.4). It is shown that such typological variation may reflect the historicity of an inflectional system. Since this variation is part of speakers��� competence, it should be recognized as an inomissible part of synchronic description (Section 3).