52 SVEN LOVEN, ON THE ECHINOIDEA DESCRIBED BY LINN^US. 



iioids of tlie iMuseiim Ludovicae Ulricse, a work regarded bv 

 its aiitlior as an indispcusable supplement to the Svstema 

 Naturte, wcre totally ncglcctcd even by Gmelin, the Göttingen 

 Professor who, with the assistance, for the Vermes, of the 

 eminent Dane Otto Fredekic IMullee, in 1788 — 179o eom- 

 piled its posthumous loth edition, »ancta, reformata». At the 

 best the diaonoses of 12th edition are transcribed, with their 

 errata, which partly at least might have been easily eorrected 

 from the Vi. L. I .; the descriptions of this work are nowhere 

 to be seeu, but in their plaees other descriptions not from 

 nature, but borrowed from various authors and referring to 

 dilFcrent species; and, worst of all, even diagnoses are arbi- 

 trarily altered by the suppression of importaut terms or the 

 insertion of others, in order to fit them to species never had 

 in view. In this state the elucidation of the Linnean Echi- 

 noids devolved on Lamakck who seems to have known even 

 the Svstema Katurre mostlv at second hand throu^h the loth 

 edition, and all the timc, 1801 — 1822, was unacquainted with 

 the Museum Ludovica Ulricae'), as were also Blainville-) 

 1825 — 1834, and DesmoulinS'^), 1835 — 37. And no more was 

 it known to Gray, 1822 — 1855, L. Agassiz, 1836 — 1847; Desor, 

 1846 — 1858; Peters, 1854; v. Mårtens. 1866: Alexander 

 Agassiz, 1864 — 1874; Troschel, 1872, and others, to the pre- 

 sent time. But Duren and Koren made occasionally usc of 

 it 1846, LuTKEN 1863, and Bölsche 1865. 



Deprived of the guidance to a true conception of the Lin- 

 nean species of Echinoids solely to be derived from the 

 Museum Ludovicse Ulrie», the authors, from Gmelin to our 

 days, have had recourse to the diagnoses of the S. N. and its 

 references to iigures contained in the works of preceding or 

 contemporarv naturalists. The diaonoses. extracted from the de- 

 scriptions and adapted towards distinguishing from one another 



') It will appear as if it did not eveu then exist at the Museum iu 

 Paris. CuviER in his »Regne Aninial» of 1817. IV. p. 138, euumerates it 

 among the writings of Lixx^us. but probahly without having seen it. 

 For under the Museum Adolphi Fridericl, fol., 1754, he adds: >LinnvKUS 

 cites a second part of this M-ork, which never appeared;. It had been 

 published. however, conjointly \vith the M. L. U., and could hardly have 

 escaped CuviEifs attention, had that volume come into his hands. In the 

 II. A. of 18;50 this mistake is eorrected. 



-) Blainville once (juotes »Mus. Lud. Ulr. 707», evidentlv from 

 Gmelin. Diet. Se. Nat. XXXVII, p. 77. 



■") Desmoulins conscientiously enumerates in a separate column the 

 books he could not consult, among' them the S. N. ed. 12 and the M. L. U. 



