qa.quantum algebra - Are the “identity object axioms” in the definition of a braided monoidal category needed? (Answered: No)

I am asking because the literature seems to contain some inconsistencies as to the definition of a braided monoidal category, and I'd like to get it straight. According Chari and Pressley's book ``A guide to quantum groups," a braided monoidal category is a monoidal category $mathcal{C}$ along with a natural system of isomorphisms $sigma_{U,V}: U otimes V rightarrow V otimes U$ for all pairs of objects $U$ and $V$, such that

(i) The ``Hexagon" axioms (two commutative diagrams) hold.

(ii) The ``identity object" axioms: $rho_V= lambda_V circ sigma_{{bf 1},V}: {bf 1} otimes V rightarrow V$
and
$lambda_V= rho_V circ sigma_{V, {bf 1}}: {V} otimes {bf 1} rightarrow V$,
where $lambda_V$ and $rho_V$ are the isomorphisms of $V otimes {bf 1}$ and ${bf 1} otimes V$ with $V$ that are part of the definition of monoidal category. See Chari-Pressley Definitions 5.2.1 and 5.2.4. They use the term "quasitensor category," but note on p153 that the term "braided monoidal category" is equivalent.

However, in some references (ii) seems to have been dropped. I am thinking in particular of Definition 3.1 is this
expository paper,
and the
wikipedia article.
The wikipedia article goes further, and suggests that (ii) somehow follows from (i) and the axioms of a monoidal category. So, my questions are.

1) Is (ii) needed? That is if we do not impose (ii), does it follow from (i) and the axioms of a monoidal category?

2) If (ii) is needed, can someone provide an example demonstrating why? That is, provide an example of a monoidal category $mathcal{C}$ along with maps $sigma_{U,V}$ such that (i) holds but (ii) fails. Alternatively, if (ii) is not needed, I'd like a proof (or reference to a proof) that it follows from other axioms.

• Next homological algebra - The sharp 3x3 lemma: a proof by universal properties?
• Previous cv.complex variables - Restriction of a complex polynomial to the unit circle