36 SVEN LOVEN, ON THE ECHINOIDEA DESCRIBED BY LINNyEUS. 



in the Mus. Lud. Ulr., containing species 434 against 273 in the lectures: 



The three first were the standard works of reference. It 

 seems singular that quotatious from Rumphius, the favciirite 

 author, so frequent in the ]\I. L. U., are so rare in the Lec- 

 tures, but this seems to be fully explained by the circum- 

 stance that Linn^eus could not show to his hearers the figures 

 of this author, which he did not possess at that time, as he 

 could those of Gualtieri and d'Argenyille. 



Many quotations are common to the Lectures and the M. 

 L. U., and in a few cases, where the quotation given in the 

 latter work has been corrupted by the transcriber, the original 

 correct notation is found in the Lectures. Thus, for instance, 

 the quotation under the Tellina gari, from d'Argenville t. 25, 

 is J, not F as in the M. L. U.; that under the Cyprsea tigris 

 from RuMPHius, t. 38, not t. 36 as in the M. L. U. Under 

 the Harpago Auris Diana? the quotation from d'Argenville 

 is t. 17 f. O, not the erroneous one in the M. L. U., a blun- 

 dering reiteration from Gualtieri. Under the Serpula anguina, 

 the Solen anguinus of Rumrhius, the Lectures, like the S. M. 

 ed. 10, have d'Argenville t. 29 f. H., not Gualtieri t. 29 f. 

 H as in the M. L. U. It has already been remarked that the 

 Lectures, under the Pholas pectinata of Rumphius (the Venus 

 punctata L.) are right in citing f. 7), not f. G. against the 

 S. N. ed. 10, the M. L. U., and\he S. N. ed. 12. 



In some instances the authors primitively referred to are 

 but partially quoted in the diiferent works. The future Tel- 

 lina rostrata is in the Lecture called: Petazunculus, pointing 

 to Rumphius, but without quoting him, while d'Argenville 

 and Gualtieri are cited, as also in tlie S. N. ed. 10, but 

 omitted in the M. Ij. U., where the citation from Rumphius 

 stånds alone. There ean be little doubt that all three were 



