A review of contributions and views on the second spectrum of Timoshenko beam theory (TBT) over the past two decades, together with some new results, are presented. It is shown that the Timoshenko frequency equation factorises not solely for hinged–hinged end conditions, as is often claimed, but also for guided–guided and guided–hinged; these new cases may be regarded as portions of a multi-span hinged–hinged beam. A higher-derivative Lagrangian that leads directly to the well-known fourth-order Timoshenko beam equation is reviewed. A simple relationship between the so-called Ostrogradski energy and the mechanical energy is derived for hinged–hinged end conditions. It is shown that the Ostrogradski energy is positive for the first spectrum but negative for the second; within some branches of physics, this would be sufficient to conclude that the second spectrum is “unphysical”. A numerical example presented by Levinson and Cooke is re-examined using both TBT and exact plane stress elastodynamic theory. Agreement is excellent for the first spectrum. However, the second spectrum predictions are not in consistent agreement with any single mode of vibration. For long wavelength it is very close to the second asymmetric mode, but as wavelength shortens, it becomes closer to the second symmetric, then the third asymmetric modes. The conclusion remains unchanged: the second spectrum predictions of TBT should be disregarded.