In [2] Kok-Wee Phan studied the way in which SL(n + 1, p) is generated by its canonical subgroups of type SL(2, 4). However, his arguments are overly complicated. In this note we outline a quick proof of his Theorems 1 and 2, making more transparent at the same time the difference between the cases of even and odd Q. All that is really needed is an examination of SL(3, a) and an appeal to Steinberg’s theorem on generators and relations. Acquaintance with the statements of Theorems 1, 2 in [2] is presupposed. Let 4 > 4. First we explore assumptions (a), (b). Say we are given two subgroups& , L, of a group G, each isomorphic to SL(2, Q), which together generate a subgroup isomorphic to SL(3, Q). We are also given elements a, in L, of order 4 1 which generate an abelian subgroup of order (p l)“, the order of the diagonal subgroup K of SL(3, q). S ince the ai are semisimple matrices, it is easy to apply a standard conjugacy theorem for Chevalley groups(cf. [3,11.5.10] and its proof) to conclude that (al, s a ) corresponds to K (after adjusting the isomorphism of (L, , L,) with SL(3, q)). Similarly, we may assume at the outset that (ai) corresponds to the diagonal subgroup of SL(2, q). When q is odd, (a,) contains a matrix of order 2 centralizingLi w SL(2, q). But the only matrices of order 2 in K are diag( 1, 1, I), diag( 1, 1, l), diag(-I, 1, -1). If, f or example, diag(1, 1, 1) centralizes Li , then the matrices in Li must all have zero entries in the (1, 3), (2, 3), (3, l), (3, 2) positions. These considerations force Li to correspond to one of the three canonical copies of SL(2, q) in SL(3, q), corresponding to the three positive roots relative to K in the root system of type A, . (Conversely, of course, any two of these three subgroups generate SL(3, q).) We may even assume that L, , L, correspond to the two simple roots of SL(3, q), if we adjust the isomorphism of (L, , L,) with SL(3, Q) by an inner automorphism (for suitable element of N(K)). In particular, it is now obvious that both <L, , uz) and (L, , a,) are isomorphic to GL(2, q), which is assumption (d) in [2, Theorem I]. When q is even, SL(2, q) is isomorphic to PSL(2, q). If we let L, be the &joint group of SL(2, q) (in its natural representation in SL(3, q)) then no