Ukrainian San River dialects are extremely interesting subject for research. Being located in the western edge Ukrainian territory, the were in close contact with the Polish language. The territory of San dialects is defined variously in different works. Generally speaking, San dialects in the territory of present-day Poland were spoken between lines running from Sanok and Dobromyl in the south and the river of Tanew in the north (north of Tarnogród). The eastern border of San dialects is not decisivelydefined. Ukrainian dialects in the vicinity of Przemysl, Jarosław and Lubaczów after displacements in 1945-1947 have preserved only in a few villages east of Przemysl. Pre-war monograph by M. Pshepjurs’ka together with subsequent completion from south-eastern borderland remains irreplaceable because it give a lot of valuable materials and conclusions, also synthetic. Other works deal with either single problems or the language of separate villages.Very good M. Onyshkevych’s The Atlas of San Lemko Dialects, based on the material gathered after the war from displaced people, remained in the form of manuscript. Stefan Hrabec gathered materials to the Atlas in 1938-1938. According to the dominant then tendencies his questionnaire picks out phenomena and vocabulary in a very good, but it deals less with morphonological and inflectional matters. That is why in my Atlasof Ukrainian San Dialects (in print in Lviv), based on S. Hrabec’s materials, there are 286 lexical maps (in some of them formative differences are represented), 48 accent maps, 67 morphonological and morphological maps and 173 maps from the field of phonetics and phonology. The Atlas largely confirms observations of M. Pshepjurs’karegarding features characteristic to San dialects, in many places it specifies them, in some presents them differently, also adds some features, also it shows ranges of many features. The strongest asset of the Atlas is showing the vocabulary and lexical differentiation of San dialects which has not been described before; as it might be expected Polish impacts are stronger in the western part, e.g. dźecko. Sometimes there is observed homogeneity of the vocabulary of these dialects in opposition to Lemko-Boiko borderland dialects, but sometimes there is distinguished larger area south of the line Dynów – Przemyśl. Sometimes separate words appear in the northern area around Cieszanów. Several maps show „Carpathian” vocabulary, which could appear together with the northern wave of the so-called Wallachian colonization, e.g. geł'etka, rumeg'aje3 sg. Strictly San dialectal words are not numerous, e.g. t'elka ‛trough for pigs’, forms ž'arvaand žar ‘rust’. The Atlas presents some important morphological phenomena as analogical changes in lenthening of vowels, e.g. vor'it~ vor'otorvdiv'ec ~ vdov'ecor p'eč’y ~ p'ič'y, in infinitive forms, e.g. pomoč'y ~ pomožč'y ~ pomohč'y or t'erty ~ ter'etyor r'obju – r'objat~r'oblu –r'oblat. Very interesting are relics,e.g. of ending -ein -*ū- stem declension: c'erkve, kr'oveand new endings,e.g. in -a- stem declension: n'oh'om, r'uk'om. As for adjectives there are different forms of nom. sg. neutr. such as s'uχ'oje ~ suχ'e ~ suχ'o. Among verbal forms we can show, e.g. forms mam, znam, noted in several places in western edges of the dialect, forms of the type χod'yłymo appear in the northern and central part; in the southern part of the Atlas there are noted forms of the type χod'yłyzmo. In adverb forms we can observe, e.g. competing forms ł'adno, r'ižno with ł'adńi, rižńi with major advantage of the last. Much more features are shown in the phonetic scope. The cartographical depiction allows fixing the area of its functioning in many cases. The most significant results are in the demonstrating: —of the inconsistency of the change ’a >’e andin the unstressed position’i(e.g. ned'ili), especially in the endings, — of the realization of *ę like ’e(e.g. mjeso, χod’et) in the wider scope than the changing ’a into’e, although not consistently in all points, — of the realization *elike’u in the new closed syllables, e.g. mjud, praet. ńus, spjuk (frequently in the Lemko dialects) on the wide belt which runs more or less latitudinal between the lines: Tarnawka – Radymno in the north and Dynów – Mostyska on the south, — of the substitution einto a next to r like parevesło, paravesło– frequently, but inconsistently – in the northern and the middle parts of the dialects; such change after the hushing consonants (e.g. pšan'yća, ž'ardka, č'alid’) couldn’t be identified as the characteristic one for the San dialects (it appears inconsistently in a few points, mainly in the suburbs of Przemyśl), — of the palatalized consonants before *e(e.g. b’êr'u) – what coalescents with occuring ofê,and what is the most characteristic feature of heart of the San dialects and appears also in the southern belt, e.g.v’'esn'a (not mentioned enough by the other scholars), — of the different narrowings of unstressed o up to u(e.g. hůr'a, t'istů,vuł'ośa, v'oku) in different parts of the dialect, —of preserving the old *i as i (e.g. zav'itka, bij'ak) in the northern and middle beltsof the dialect (but the consonants before are frequently dispalatalized), — of the relics of *y as retracted y, marked like ы(e.g. v'ыmja) or like -a (e.g. do kap'usta), — of the phonological difference between*y and *i, — of the pronountiation of *v(e.g. v'ujko,krop'yŭa, kroŭ,fśo), — of the pronountiation of *ł (e.g. stiŭ, c'aŭkom;sł'imak), — of the palatalized ŕ before ’a/’e, which are descended from the old*ę, in the southern belt and in the districts of Przemyśl, Radymno, LubaczówandCieszanów, (e.g. pŕaža/pŕeže)and from the old *a in gen. sg. p'ysaŕa/p'ysaŕe in the southern belt and in the eastern part of the middle belt, — the existence of consonant ǯ (<*dj): in the formsaǯa in the whole area; the forms pŕaǯa, meǯaetc. mainly appear in the southern and middle belts and in the north of the mapped area, — of the realization of the group of consonants ńkasjk(e.g. małejkyj, pjatnojka) in the majority of points in the Atlas, — of the fluctuations u ~ ŭ ~ v ~ h in the initial parts of words (e.g. χpoły,χp’iŭśa, hnuka, unukaetc.), — of the range of the voising of consonants in the middle of the words (e.g.stežga) on the small area northern east ofPrzemyśl, but also in some words (e.g. prjaznyća) appears in the west part of the mapped area. The wider report about the San dialects with the taking all previous studies and available handwriting materials, with its critical discussion, crosses the confines not only of the present draft, but also of the Atlas. Also it is stay a problem of possible determination of the dialects’ borders, decision of the additional criteria of its marking. It is hoped that this can be done soon.