MK.S.HANLEY ON THE LINNEAN MS. OF THE ' MUSEUM ULEIC.E.' -13 



author has taken what he supposes to be the capsules of Need- 

 ham, with dilated oval ends, tubular and bent pedicles or pro- 

 cesses, enclosed elastic filaments, and adhering zoosperms, from 

 the oviducts of the female : he has made the same observation 

 also in Sepia. The latter has very similar male organs to Oc- 

 topus, as described by Cuvier. In the embryo Sepia, the yelk 

 enters below the mouth and opens into the upper stomach, but 

 the beak of the animal also appears to be inserted into it be- 

 hind. The vitellus in reality therefore enters by the foot, as it 

 does in Bulimus, and probably in all Bivalves. 



On the Linnean Manuscript of the ' Museum TJlricse.' 



By Sylvanus Hanley, Esq., F.L.S. 



[Read Dec. 3, 1858.] 



Not the least important result of the investigations of the Com- 

 mittee appointed by the Linnean Society to examine the condi- 

 tion of the collections and manuscripts of Linnaeus, was the redis- 

 covery of a written copy of the ' Museum Ulricse.' The volume 

 was manifestly, from internal evidence, a legible transcript of the 

 original manuscript of that work, with alterations and interpola- 

 tions in the peculiar handwriting of the author. It was, indubi- 

 tably, the unpublished catalogue so often mentioned in the tenth 

 edition of the ' Systema,' and contains descriptions of certain spe- 

 cies alluded to as defined, yet, strangely enough, omitted in the 

 printed edition. It is worthy of notice for many reasons : it cor- 

 rects the frequent misprints ; explains the many fallacious allusions 

 to preceding species, their sequence being very different ; it ex- 

 hibits those early synonyms, which, culled from comparison with 

 the actually described specimens, had been eventually supplanted 

 by supposed better representations ; above all, it imparts to us 

 those original headings, or diagnoses (condensed from the sub- 

 sequent detads), which had been suppressed, of old, in favour of 

 those already pubKshed in the ' Systema.' 



This wholesale substitution, adopted by Linnaeus, as a ready 

 method of avoiding a tedious revision of all the headings, when he 

 absorbed in the more comprehensive groups of his ' Systema ' the 

 members of manuscript genera he had determined to reject,involved 

 a serious amount of confusion ; for, oftentimes, the species of the 

 two works, although designated by the same appellations, were 

 totally distinct ; and the combination of the diagnosis of the one 

 with the details of the other displayed an array of features not 

 known to be associated in any object in nature. 



